- ,.-~ - - _·...--:·~-:: -~ -=- :~--- .. _..:..~-- .. __

..:

'-

_ ....

---..;:-- ... _ ~ Volume 24

1992 PROCEEDINGS

of

THE AMERICAN PEANUT RESEARCH AND EDUCATION SOCIETY, INC.

Meeting Norfolk, Virginia July 7-10, 1992

Publication Date November 1992

Editor: J. Ronald Sholar Production Editor: Pam Gillen TABLE OF CONTENTS

Board of Directors ...... 1 Annual Meeting Sites ...... 1 APRES Committees ...... 2 Past Presidents ...... 4 Fellows ...... 4 Bailey Award ...... 5 NPC Research and Education Award ...... 5 Joe Sugg Graduate Student Award ...... 6 Coyt T. Wilson Distinguished Service Award ...... 6 DowElanco Award for Excellence in Extension ...... 6 DowElanco Award for Excellence in Research ...... 6 Annual Meeting Presentations ...... 7 Minutes of the Board of Directors Meeting ...... 64 Opening Remarks by the President at the 1992 Business Meeting of APRES - Dr. Charles E. Simpson ...... 76 Business Meeting and Awards Ceremony ...... 79 Finance Committee Report ...... 81 APRES Budget 1992-93 ...... 82 APRES Balance Sheet for FY 1991-92 ...... 83 APRES Statement of Activity for Year Ending ...... 84 Peanut Science Budget ...... 85 Peanut Science and Technology Sales Report and Inventory Adjustment 1991-92 ...... 85 Public Relations Committee Report ...... 86 Publication and Editorial Committee Report ...... 88 Nominating Committee Report ...... 90 Fellows Committee Report ...... 90 Biographical Summary of Fellows Recipients ...... 91 Guidelines for APRES Fellow Elections ...... 94 Format for APRES Fellow Nominations ...... 96 Bailey Award Committee Report ...... 99 Nominees for Bailey Award 1992 ...... 100 Joe Sugg Graduate Student Award Report ...... 101 Coyt T. Wilson Distinguished Service Award Report ...... 102 Biographical Summary of Coyt T. Wilson Distinguished Service Award Recipient ...... 103 Guidelines for APRES Coyt T. Wilson Distinguished Service Award ...... 104 DowElanco Awards Committee Report ...... 106 Biographical Summary of DowElanco Award for Excellence in Extension ...... 106 Biographical Summary of DowElanco Award for Excellence in Research ...... 107 Guidelines for DowElanco Awards for Excellence in Research and Extension ...... 108 Nomination Form for DowElanco Awards ...... 11 O Peanut Quality Committee Report ...... 112 Program Committee Report -...... 113 1992 Program ...... 114 Site Selection Committee Report ...... 132 American Society of Agronomy Liaison Representative Report ...... 132 CAST Report ...... 133 New Book Ad-Hoc Committee Report ...... 135 National Peanut Council Research and Education Award Advisory Committee Report ...... 135 Report of Liaison Representative from the Southern Regional Association of State Agricultural Experiment Station Directors ..... 136 By-Laws of APRES ...... · ...... 137 Membership (1975-1992) ...... 147 Membership Roster Individuals ...... 148 Institutional ...... 176 Organizational ...... 181 Student ...... 184 Sustaining ...... 186 Author Index ...... 188

0

ii BOARD OF DIRECTORS 1992-93 President Walton Mozingo (1993) Past President ...... Charles E. Simpson (1993) President-elect ...... Dallas Hartzog (1993) Executive Officer ...... J. Ron Sholar (1993)

~ State Employee Representatives: (VC Area) ...... Charles Swann (1995) (SE Area) ...... David Knauft (1993) (SW Area) ...... Edwin Colburn (1994) USDA Representative ...... Thomas Whitaker (1995) Industry Representatives: Production ...... Clifton L. Stacy (1994) Shelling, Marketing, Storage ...... Doyle Welch (1995) Manufactured Products ...... John Haney (1993) National Peanut Council President ...... Kim Cutchins (1993)

ANNUAL MEETING SITES 1969 - Atlanta, Georgia 1981 - Savannah, Georgia 1970 - San Antonio, Texas 1982 - Albuquerque, New Mexico 1971 - Raleigh, North Carolina 1983 - Charlotte, North Carolina 1972 - Albany, Georgia 1984 - Mobile, Alabama 1973 - Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 1985 - San Antonio, Texas 1974 - Williamsburg, Virginia 1986 - Virginia Beach, Virginia 1975 - Dothan, Alabama 1987 - Orlando, Florida 1976 - Dallas, Texas 1988 - Tulsa, Oklahoma 1977 - Asheville, North Carolina 1989 - Winston-Salem, North Carolina 1978 - Gainesville, Florida 1990 - Stone Mountain, Georgia 1979 - Tulsa, Oklahoma 1991 - San Antonio, Texas 1980 - Richmond, Virginia 1992 - Norfolk, Virginia

1969-1978: American Peanut Research and EducationAssociation (APREA) 1979-Present: American Peanut Research and Education Society, Inc. (APRES) 1 APRES COMMITTEES

1992-93

Program Committee Publications and Editorial Committee Dallas Hartzog, chair (1993) Mike Schubert, chair (1993) Joe Dorner (1993) Public Relations Committee Richard S. Wilkes (1993) Marvin Beute (1994) Dan Gorbet, chair (1994) Tim Brenneman (1994) James E. Mobley (1993) Austin Hagan (1994) Howard Thomas (1994) Bill Branch (1995) Tom Whitaker (1994) Dave Hogg (1995) Richard Crozier (1995) Randy Griggs (1995) Bobby Walls (1995) Peanut Quality Committee

Gene Sullivan, chair (1993) Finance Committee Aithel McMahon (1993) Terry Coffelt (1994) Mark Braxton, chair (1994) Danny Colvin (1994) William C. Odle (1993) Gerald Harrison (1994) Fred Cox (1995) Darold Ketring (1994) Scott Wright (1995) Bill Birdsong (1995) Ron Sholar, ex-officio

Bailey Award Committee Nominating Committee Ken Boote, chair (1993) Charles Simpson, chair (1993) Chip Lee (1993) Ken Jackson (1993) Jim Davidson (1994) Aithel McMahon (1993) Hassan Melouk (1994) Tim Sanders (1993) Glen Heuberger (1995) Benny Rogerson (1995)

Site Selection Committee Fellows Committee James R. Weeks, chair (1993) Greg Gregory (1993) Morris Porter, chair (1993) John Damicone, vice-chair (1994) Clyde Young (1993) Darold Ketring (1994) Dan Gorbet (1994) ~ Rick Brandenburg (1995) Olin Smith (1994) Tom Isleib (1995) James E. Mobley (1995) Jerry Bennett (1996) Billy Rowe (1995) Danny Colvin (1996)

2 National Peanut Council Awards Committee

Leland Tripp, chair (1993) Clyde Young (1993) James Grichar (1994) Ron Henning (1994) Dick Cole (1995) Gene Sullivan (1995)

Coyt T. Wilson Distinguished Service Award Committee

David Dougherty, chair (1994) George Alston (1993) Alex Csinos (1993) Craig Kvien (1994) William Flanagan (1995) Norris Powell (1995)

DowElanco Awards Committee

Johnny Wynne, chair (1993) Dennis Hale (1993) Ken Jackson (1993) Dave Knauft (1994) Chip Lee (1994) John Beasley (1995) Zackie Harrell (1995)

3 PAST PRESIDENTS

Charles E. Simpson (1991) James S. Kirby (1979) Ronald J. Henning (1990) Allen J. Norden (1978) Johnny C. Wynne (1989) Astor Perry (19n) Hassan A. Melouk (1988) Leland Tripp (1976) Daniel W. Gorbet (1987) J. Frank McGill (1975) D. Morris Porter (1986) Kenneth Garren (1974) Donald H. Smith (1985) Edwin L. Sexton (1973) Gale A. Buchanan (1984) Olin D. Smith (1972) Fred C. Cox (1983) William T. Mills (1971) David D. H. Hsi (1982) J.W. Dickens (1970) James L. Butler (1981) David L. Moake (1969) Allen H. Allison (1980) Norman D. Davis (1968)

FELLOWS

Dr. Hassan A. Melouk (1992) Dr. James L. Steele (1988) Dr. F. Scott Wright (1992) Dr. Daniel Hallock (1986) Dr. Johnny C. Wynne (1992) Dr. Clyde T. Young (1986) Dr. John C. French (1991) Dr. Olin D. Smith (1986) Dr. Daniel W. Gorbet (1991) Mr. Allen H. Allison (1985) Mr. Norfleet L. Sugg (1991) Mr. J.W. Dickens (1985) Dr. James S. Kirby (1990) Dr. Thurman Boswell (1985) Mr. R. Walton Mozingo (1990) Dr. Allen J. Norden (1984) Mrs. Ruth Ann Taber (1990) Dr. William V. Campbell (1984) Dr. Darold L. Ketring (1989) Dr. Harold Pattee (1983) Dr. D. Morris Porter (1989) Dr. Leland Tripp (1983) Mr. J. Frank McGill (1988) Dr. Kenneth H. Garren (1982) Dr. Donald H. Smith (1988) Dr. Ray 0. Hammons (1982) Mr. Joe S. Sugg (1988) Mr. Astor Perry (1982) Dr. Donald J. Banks (1988)

4 BAILEY AWARD

1992 T.B. Whitaker, F.E. Dowell, W.M. Hagler, F.G. Giesbrecht and J. Wu 1991 P.M. Phipps, D.A. Herbert, J.W. Wilcut, C.W. Swann, G.G. Gallimore and T.B. Taylor 1990 J.M. Bennett, P.J. Sexton and K.J. Boote 1989 D.L. Ketring and T.G. Wheless 1988 A.K. Culbreath and M.K. Beute 1987 J.H. Young and LJ. Rainey 1986 T.B. Brenneman, P.M. Phipps and R.J. Stipes 1985 K.V. Pixley, K.J. Boote, F.M. Shakes and D.W. Gorbet 1984 C.S. Kvien, R.J. Henning, J.E. Pallas and W.D. Branch 1983 C.S. Kvien, J.E. Pallas, D.W. Maxey and J. Evans 1982 E. Jay Williams and J. Stanley Drexler 1981 N.A. deRivero and S.L. Poe 1980 J. Stanley Drexler and E. Jay Williams 1979 David A. Nickle and David W. Hagstrum 1978 John M. Traeger and James L Butler 1977 Johnny C. Wynne 1976 J.W. Dickens and Thomas B. Whitaker 1975 Robert E. Pettit, Frederick M. Shokes and Ruth Ann Taber

NPC RESEARCH AND EDUCATION AWARD

1992 J.C. Wynne 1977 H.E. Pattee 1991 D.J. Banks and J.S. Kirby 1976 D.A. Emery 1990 G. Sullivan 1975 R.O. Hammons 1989 R.W. Mozingo 1974 K.H. Garren 1988 R.J. Henning 1973 A.J. Norden 1987 L.M. Redlinger 1972 U.L. Diener and N.D. Davis 1986 A.H. Allison 1971 A.E. Waltking 1985 E.J. Williams and J.S. Drexler 1970 A.L. Harrison 1984 Leland Tripp 1969 H.C. Harris 1983 R. Cole, T. Sanders, R. Hill, 1968 C.R. Jackson and P. Blankenship 1967 R.S. Matlock and M.E. Mason 1982 J. Frank McGill 1966 L.I. Miller 1981 G.A. Buchanan 1965 B.C. Langley and E.W.Hauser 1964 A.M. Altschul 1980 T.B. Whitaker 1963 W.A. Carver 1979 J.L. Butler 1962 J.W. Dickens 1978 R.S. Hutchinson 1961 W.C. Gregory

1989 Changed to National Peanut Council Research and Education Award 1961-1988 Golden Peanut Research and Education Award

5 JOE SUGG GRADUATE STUDENT AWARD

1992 M.J. Bell 1990 R.M. Cu 1991 T.E. Clemente 1989 R.M. Cu

COYT T. WILSON DISTINGUISHED SERVICE AWARD

1992 Dr. Harold E. Pattee 1991 Dr. Leland Tripp 1990 Dr. D.H. Smith

DOWELANCO AWARD FOR EXCELLENCE IN EXTENSION

1992 J. Ronald Sholar

DOWELANCO AWARD FOR EXCELLENCE IN RESEARCH

1992 Rodrigo Rodriguez-Kabana

6 ANNUAL MEETING PRESENTATIONS

PAPERS

Graduate Student Papers

Radiation Use Efficiency of Peanut in Southern Ontario ...... 16 M.J. Bell*, R.C. Roy, and T.E. Michaels

Evaluation of Peanut Embryonic Leaflets as Recipient Tissue for Biolistic DNA Delivery ...... 16 T.E. Clemente*, J.A. Schnall, M.K. Beute, and A.K. Weissinger

Peanut Cultivar Tolerance Differences to Nicosulfuron Applications . . . . 17 T.A. Littlefield*, D.L. Colvin, and B.J. Brecke

Comparison of Field Resistance and the Effect of Peanut Growth Habit with Expression of Metabolic and Physiological Resistance to Sclerotinia minor ...... 17 G.F. Chappell* and M.K. Beute

On-farm Evaluation of AU-Pnuts; an Expert System for Control of Leaf Spot Diseases of Peanut ...... 18 P.M. Brannen* and P.A. Backman

Influence of Sulfur and Seaweed Extract on Peanut Yield ...... 18 N.V. Nkongolo* and P.E. lgbokwe

Breeding and Biotechnology

Transformation of Peanuts (Arachis spp.) with a Peanut Stripe Virus Coat-Protein (PStV-CP) Gene via Particle Bombardment and Polyethylene Glycol (PEG) Treatment of Protoplasts ...... 19 Z.J. Li, J.W. Demski*, R.L. Jarret, R.N. Pittman, and K.B. Dunbar

Regeneration of Transgenic Shoots from Long-Term Embryonic Cultures of Arachis hypogaea ...... 19 P. Ozias-Akins*, W.F. Anderson, J.A. Schnall, C. Singsit, T.E. Clemente, and A.K. Weissinger

Development of in vitro Regeneration Approaches for Valencia-type Peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) Suitable for Agrobacterium- mediated Transformation ...... 20 M. Cheng*, D.C.H. Hsi, and G.C. Phillips

7 Culture of Peanut Zygotic Embryos for Transformation via Microprojectile Bombardment ...... 20 J.A. Schnall and A.K Weissinger*

Response of Peanut Cultivars to Different Leafspot Spray Initiation Dates ...... 21 D.W. Gorbet*, F.M. Shokes, and D.A. Knauft

New High-Yielding Israeli Peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) Cultivars . . . . . 21 l.S. Wallerstein* and S. Kahn

Germline Transformation of Peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) Utilizing Electric Discharge Particle Accelration (ACCELL™) Technology 21 G.S. Brar*, B.A. Cohen, and C.L. Vick

Breeding for Resistance

Evaluation of Advanced Georgia Breeding Lines for White Mold and Rhizoctonia Limb Rot Resistance ...... 22 W.D. Branch* and T.B. Brenneman

Screening Peanut Genotypes for Resistance to Stem Rot Caused by Sclerotium ro/fsii ...... 22 F.M. Shokes*, D.W. Gorbet, Z. Weber, and D.A. Knauft

Improvements in Screening Techniques for Resistance to Preharvest Aflatoxin Contamination and Some Potential Sources of Resistance 23 C.C. Holbrook*, D.M. Wilson, W.F. Anderson, M.E. Will, and M. E. Matheron

Reaction of Arachis lnterspecific Hybrid TP-135-4 to the Northern Root-Knot Nematode Meloidogyne hap/a ...... 23 J.L. Starr*, C.E. Simpson, and C.S. Katsar

Leafspot Resistance of Genotypes Derived from Crosses of Wild Arachis spp. and Virginia Peanut ...... 24 B.B. Shew*, H.T. Stalker, and M.K. Beute

Late Leafspot, TSWV and Growth Traits within Peanut Core Collection ...... 24 W.F. Anderson* and C.C. Holbrook

Comparison of Components of Resistance to Late Leafspot in Peanut Measured in Different Environments ...... 25 A.J. Chiyembekeza, DA. Knauft*, and D.W. Gorbet

8 The Interaction Between Maturity and Leafspot Resistance in Peanut . . 25 B.E. Friesen*, D.A. Knauff, and D.W. Gorbet

Curing, Processing, and Utilization

Antioxidative Activity in Oils Prepared from Peanut Kernels Subjected to Various Treatments and Roasting ...... 26 R.Y.-Y. Chiou*

Oil and Flavor Quality of TSWV Infected Seed ...... 26 T.H. Sanders*, A.M. Schubert, and K.L Bett

Response Surface Modeling of Extrusion Processed Full-fat Peanut and Sorghum Multi-mix Blend ...... 27 J.C. Anderson*, X. Yan, and B. Singh

Relationship of Kernel Moisture Content to Aflatoxin Contamination in Florunner and Southern Runner Peanuts ...... 27 J.W. Dorner*, R.J. Cole, and P.O. Blankenship

A Sensor to Measure Peanut Moisture Content While Curing ...... 28 C.L. Butts*

Peanut Quality Improvement Through Controlled Curing ...... 28 K.D. Baker*, F.S. Wright, and J.S. Cundiff

Development of an Expert System for Curing Peanuts ...... 29 J.M. Troeger* and C.L. Butts

Expert Systems for the Peanut Industry ...... 29 J.I. Davidson*, M.C. Lamb, C.L. Butts, M.Singletary, J.M. Troeger, E.J. Williams, J.S. Smith, and P.O. Blankenship

Production and Extension Technology

The Virginia Pesticide Use Survey for Peanut Production in 1990 . . . . . 30 P.M. Phipps*, D.A; Herbert, Jr., and C.W. Swann

Spray-Tank-Mix Compatibility of Manganese, Boron, and Fungicide I: Wet Chemistry ...... 30 N.L. Powell*

Response of Virginia-type Peanut Cultivars to Chlorimuron ...... 31 C.W. Swann*

9 Comparison of Plow layer and Pegging Zone Soil Test Results in Georgia ...... 31 S.C. Hodges* and G.J. Gascho

Phosphorus and Potassium Fertilization on Peanut ...... 31 D.L. Hartzog* and J.F. Adams

Production and Seed Technology

Row Pattern Demonstrations in Georgia ...... 32 J.P. Beasley, Jr.* and J.A. Baldwin

Diamond Shaped Seeding of Six Peanut Cultivars ...... 32 R.W. Mozingo* and F.S. Wright

Yield and Grade of Florunner Peanut Following Two Years of 'Tifton 9' Bahiagrass, Corn, or Peanut ...... 32 J.A. Baldwin*

An Index to Assess Quality of Peanut Seeds ...... 33 D.L. Ketring*

Peanut Germination Related to Potassium, Calcium and Magnesium in Seed, Hulls, and Soils ...... 33 G.J. Gascho*, W.R. Guerke, M.B. Parker, and T.P. Gaines

Sample Mixing in a Full-size Peanut Combine ...... 34 B.J. Brecke*

Entomology

Thrips Overwintering in Relation to Peanut Emergence in North Carolina ...... 35 R.L. Brandenburg and J.D. Barbour*

Tobacco Thrips Control Alternatives and Effects on Peanut Maturity and Yield ...... 35 D.A. Herbert, Jr.* and C.W. Swann

Management of Thrips on Peanuts in Alabama Integrating Cultural and Insecticidal Control Practices ...... 36 J.R. Weeks* and A.K. Hagan

Wireworms as Pests of Peanuts in Georgia ...... 36 S.L. Brown*

10 Economics

PNTPLAN, An Expert Systems Whole-farm Planning Model Designed to Optimize Peanut-based Rotation Decisions ...... 37 M.C. Lamb*, J.I. Davidson, and C.L. Butts

Structural Trends in Southwest Peanut Production ...... 37 F.D. Mills, Jr.*

The National Poundage Quota: Analysis of Some Alternative Approaches ...... 38 R.H. Miller*

An Examination of Federal Crop Insurance as a Risk Management Tool in Southeast Peanut Production ...... 38 W.D. Shurley*

Plant Pathology

Detection of Peanut Stripe Virus in Peanut Seed Using the Polymerase Chain Reaction ...... 39 J.L. Sherwood*, R.E. Pennington, B.G. Cassidy, and R.S. Nelson

Comparison of Hidden and Apparent Spotted Wilt Epidemics in Peanut ...... 39 A.K. Culbreath*, J.W. Todd, and J.W. Demski

Variability in the Morphology and Germinability of Cercospora arachidico/a Isolates ...... 40 P.V. Subba Rao, J.L. Renard, F. Waliyar•, P. Subrahmanyam, D.H. Smith, and D. McDonald

Biological Control of Peanut Leafspot with a Mycoparasite ...... 40 D.M. Porter• and R.A. Taber

Hairy Indigo for the Management of Meloidogyne arenaria in Peanut . . 41 D.G. Robertson*, R. Rodriguez-Kabana, and L. Wells

Implications of Peanut Seed Infection with Sclerotinia minor on the Epidemiology of Sclerotinia Blight ...... 41 H.A. Melouk*, K.E. Jackson, and J.P. Damicone

Modification of Canopy Microclimate by Pruning to Control Sclerotinia Blight of Peanut ...... 42 P.O. Brune* and J.E. Bailey ·

11 Development of Strategies for Integrated Management of Sclerotinia Blight of Peanut in Oklahoma ...... 42 K.E. Jackson*, HA. Melouk, J.P. Damicone, and J.R. Sholar

Weather Monitoring Device for the Development and Deployment of Disease Advisory Models ...... 43 J.E. Bailey*

On-Farm Evaluation of Folicur 3.6F for Peanut Disease Control ...... 43 J.W. Bell*, K.A. Noegel, and R.D. Rudolph

Effects of Irrigation on Yield and Rhizoctonia Limb Rot in Southern Runner Peanut at Two Harvest Dates ...... 44 T.B. Brenneman*

Effectiveness of Four New Experimental Fungicides for Control of Southern Blight on Peanut in Texas ...... 44 T.A. Lee, Jr.*

Disease Control and Yield Response of Peanut Treated with Moncut as Influenced by Crop Rotation ...... 45 A.K. Hagan*, K.L Bowen, and J.R. Weeks

Survival of Rhizoctonia so/ani AG-4 in Residual Peanut Shells in Soil . . 45 R.E. Baird, D.K. Bell*, B.G. Mullinix, Jr., and A.K. Culbreath

Weed Science

Pursuit Tank Mixtures for Weed Control in Georgia Peanuts ...... 46 S. Jones*, J.W. Wilcut, J.S. Richburg, Ill, and G. Wiley

Pursuit and Cadre Mixtures for Weed Control in Georgia Peanuts . . . . . 46 J.W. Wilcut* and J.S. Richburg, Ill

Cadre Systems for Weed Control in Georgia and North Carolina Peanuts ...... 47 T.L. Grey*, J.W. Wilcut, G.R. Wehtje, F.R. Walls, Jr., and G. Wiley

Influence of Pursuit and Cadre on Nutsedge Development ...... 47 D.T. Gooden* and M.B. Wixson ~

Weed Control in Texas Peanuts with V-53482 ...... 48 W.J. Grichar* and P.S. Boyd-Robertson

12 DPX PE350 (STAPLE) and F6285 for Weed Control in Georgia Peanuts ...... 48 J.S. Richburg, Ill* and J.W. Wilcut

Interactions of Classic (Chlorimuron) with Other Pesticide Used in Peanuts ...... 49 G.R. Wehtje* and J.W. Wilcut

FLAIR: A Potential New Cracking-Time Peanut Herbicide ...... 49 D.L. Colvin* and W.C. Johnson, Ill

Effects of Endothall Formulation, Rate, and Time of Application on Peanut ...... 50 W.C. Johnson, Ill* and D.L. Colvin

Interactions of Butyrac with Postemergence Graminicides ...... 50 A.C. York*, J.W. Wilcut, and W.J. Grichar

Modeling Peanut Yield Losses Due to Weeds ...... 51 J.C. Barbour* and D.C. Bridges

Economic forces Impacting the U.S. Peanut Industry Symposium

U.S. and World Peanut Market Analysis ...... 52 S.M. Fletcher*, P. Zhang, and D.H. Carley

U.S. Peanut Policy and Trade Issues - Impact on Peanut Farmers .... 52 D.H. Carley* and S.M. Fletcher

Regional Peanut Production Costs, Production History, and Market Structure: Profitability and Advantage ...... ,...... 53 M.C. Lamb, W.D. Shurley*, F.D. Mills, Jr., and A.B. Brown

Future Issues and Potential Changes in Domestic Peanut Policy ...... 53 J.D. Schaub*

A Manufacturer's Perspective on GATT ...... 54 C.C. Barnett*

A Grower's Perspective on GATT ...... 54 J.L. Adams*

13 Fungicide Resistance Symposium

Fungicide Resistance in Peanut Production ...... 55 T.B. Brenneman* and A.K. Culbreath

Peanut Disease Control Strategies Utilizing Sterol Biosynthesis Inhibitors in Texas ...... 55 T.A. Lee, Jr.*

Integrating Ergosterol Biosynthesis Inhibiting Fungicides into Strategies for Peanut Disease Control in Virginia ...... 56 P.M. Phipps*

Application Strategies for Minimizing Resistance Build-up to Sterol Inhibitor Fungicides in Southeastern Peanuts ...... 56 P.A. Backman*

Tank Mix Applications of Cyproconazole with Chlorothalonil for Control of Peanut Leaf Spot ...... 57 A.K. Culbreath*, T.B. Brenneman, and F.M. Shokes

Risk of Resistance to Sterol Biosynthesis Inhibitors ...... 57 W. Koller*

Better Management of Fungicide Resistance ...... 58 J. French*

Fungicide Resistance Research within Ciba-Geigy-A Major Part of Product Stewardship ...... 58 G.R. Watson*

Applications Strategies for Use of T ebuconazole on Peanut ...... 58 K.A. Noegel*

POSTERS

Trivial Movement and Dispersal Patterns of the Tobacco Thrips ...... 59 A.J. Birdwhistell*, N.D. Stone, and D.A. Herbert

Contamination of Thrips by Tomato Spotted Wilt Virus as Determined by ELISA .... ; ...... 59 K.K. Kresta*, F.L. Mitchell, J.W. Smith, Jr., and V.K. Lowry

Population Dynamics of Thrips Vectoring Tomato Spotted Wilt Virus in Texas Peanut Fields ...... 59 F.L. Mitchell*, J.W. Smith, Jr., and H.B. Highland

14 Spotted Wilt Disease (TSWV) Incidence in Peanut Following Various Insecticide Application Regimes for Thrips Vector Control ...... 60 J.W. Todd*, J.R. Chamberlin, A.K. Culbreath, and J.W. Demski

Performance of Peanuts (Arachis hypogaea L.) as Influenced by Seeding Rate and Planter ...... 60 L. Wells, J.R. Weeks, and G.R. Wehtje

An Overview of the Peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) Crop in Mexico . . . . 61 S. Sanchez-Dominguez*

A Blot Assay for Detection of Peanut Arginase ...... 61 S.Y. Chung* and Y.M. Bordelon

Viscosity Changes in the Hydration of Peanut Butter ...... 62 T.O.M. Nakayama*

Phytoalexin Induction in Peanut Leaves ...... 62 S.M. Basha*

Factors Affecting Adventitious Shoot Formation from Mature Leaf Explants of Arachis villosulicarpa Hoehne ...... 63 K.B. Dunbar* and R. N. Pittman

Spray-Tank-Mix Compatibility of Manganese, Boron, and Fungicide II: Visual Demonstration ...... 63 D.C. Martens and N.L. Powell*

15 GRADUATE STUDENT PAPERS

Radjatjon Use Efficiency of Peanut jn Southern Ontario. H.J. BELL1*, R.C. ROY2 and T.E. MICHAELS'. Dept. of Crop Science, Univ. of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario Canada. 2Agric. Canada, Delhi Research Station, Delhi, Ontarjo, Canada. Recent research has suggested that low night temperatures (15-17"C) may limit rates of dry matter (OM) accumulation and the efficiency of conversion of intercepted photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) to DH (Radiation Use 1 Efficiency, RUE; g MJ' ) in subtropical production environments. Total OM and economic yjelds at maturity may not be reduced, however, due to compensatjng effects of cool nights on rate of accumulation of thermal time, resulting in longer crop duratjon. Eight peanut cultjvars, representing Virginia, Spanish and Valencja botanical types, were grown during 1991 in the field at Delhi (SW Ontarjo) to evaluate potential variatjon in RUE under cool night conditions. Cultivars represented locally adapted material, as well as sources of desirable physiologjcal traHs used in the local breedfog program (eg. earliness - cv. Chjco; high partitioning to pods - cv. Early Bunch) and cultivars with high yield potential in other environments (Va 910212; Marc 1). Following an unusually warm growjng season of 127 days after emergence (DAE) to first frost (mean max .. 27.0"C, mean min .. 13.S"C), all cultivars had reached physiological maturity except Early Bunch, Marc 1 and Va 910212. Pod yields were exceptionally high, ranging from 3910 kg ha' 1 (Chico; 109 DAE) to 7610 kg ha' 1 (Va 910212; 123 DAE) at 9% moisture. No significant differences were observed among cultivars in sjngle leaf, ljght-saturating apparent C0 assimilatjon rates from 60-90 DAE, wjth the exception of a 40% decline towards2 the end of that period for cv. Tango. Assimnation rates ranged from 16-24 11moles C0 m· 2s·1, depending on temperature. Total DH figures from destructive samples were2 adjusted to account for the h\gh energy content of kernels, and used in RUE calculations. There were no signjfjcant differences in RUE among cultivars JP<0.05), with a pooled estimate of RUE across cultivars being 2.06 (±0.02) g MJ' • Values of RUE were simHar to those obtained in environments with night temperatures of 15-17"C, and suggest RUE may be insensitive to njght temperatures from 13-17"C.

Evaluation of Peanut Embryonic 1.eaflets as Recipient Tissue £or Biolistic DNA Delivery T.E. CLEMENTE*, J.A. SCHNALL2 , H.K. BEUTE1 , and A.K. 'WEISSINGER2 • Dept. of Plant Pathology1 and Crop Science 2 , North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695. Succ~ssful gene transfer into a crop species is dependent upon two parameters of the transformation system, the stable integration of the foreign DNA into a cell, and the subsequent differentiation of that cell. Estimates were made on the frequency of integration events within embryonic leaflets of two peanut genotypes, UPL PN4 and Tamnut 74. Integration events were based on the recovery of stably growing callus masses isolated from leaflet tissue in which plasmid DNA (pRT 99 GUS carrying the selected marker NPT II and the assayable marker B-glucuronidase, GUS) was delivered by the biolistic process with subsequent subculturing of the leaflet tissue on selective medium. Combined results of three large scale experiments conducted with UPL PN4 and two experiments with Tamnut 74 were tabulated. Frequency of recovery of stably growing calli from UPL PN4 was estimated at 0.24 calli per leaflet cultured, while Tamnut 74 estimated frequency was 0.025 calli per leaflet cultured. Thirty callus lines derived from UPL PN4 were characterized for presence of the delivered DNA sequences by PCR analysis and expression of proteins by ELISA (NPT II) and fluorometry (GUS). All 30 callus lines contained the NPT II open reading frame (ORF) and all were positive for NPT II expression. Twenty-eight of the 30 callus lines contained the GUS ORF, while eight of the 30 were co-expressing GUS. Culture experiments conducted with the embryonic leaflets demonstrated a strong genotype effect governing plant regeneration frequencies. The limiting factor for the successful recovery of transgenic plants with this system is the identification of a genotype within the cultivated peanut germplasm which responds well in culture.

16 Peanut Cultivar Tolerance Differences to Nicosulfuron Applications. T. A. Littlefield*, D. L. Colvin and B. J. Brecke, University of Florida, Gainesville, 32611. Field research was conducted at Archer and Marianna, Florida, during 1990 and Trenton and Archer, Florida, in 1991 to determine peanut cultivar tolerance to nicosulfuron applications. Sunrunner, Southernrunner, NC-7, Valencia and Florigiant peanuts were planted at all locations in mid-May at a seeding rate of 112 kg/ha and harvested approximately 115 - 150 days after planting according to cultivar maturity. Nicosulfuron application rate was 0.038 kg ai/ha and was applied alone and tank-mixed with 2,4-DB. Applications were made at 5, 9, and a sequential of 5 + 9 weeks after planting. Visual peanut injury ratings were made two, four and six weeks after each application time. Injury was reported as percent of the untreated check. Yield was taken at maturity and grade data was gathered according to USDA standards. Results indicate that all varieties exhibited significant amounts of injury and yield reductions from the 5 WAP applications. There were no variety tolerance differences from the 9 WAP applications with no significant injury or yield reductions. Sequential treat­ ments consistently exhibited greater injury and in most cases lower yields.

Comparison of Field Resistance and the Effect of Peanut Growth Habit with Expression of Metabolic and Physiological Resistance to Sclerotinia minor. G. F. CHAPPELL* and M. K. BEUTE. Dept. of Crop Science and Dept. of Plant Pathology, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, N.C. 27695 Studies were conducted over the 1990 and 1991 growing seasons in four row by 8.5 m plots. Nine genotypes having varying levels of resistance were planted in each test. The first study, conducted in infested portions of the field, involved measuring canopy height and width, limb number and length in a 2 cm zone above the soil surface, and pegs in a 0.5 m row section of row at 2 wk intervals. The second study (destructive sampling) was established in uninfested portions of the field to characterize total plant canopy. Canopy height and width was measured on site and a 0.5 m section was removed to measure leaf area, leaflet number, limb length and number, and sample dry weight. Field evaluations and field disease levels were moderately correlated (r=0.41 to 0.52) for limb number, limb length and canopy width. Canopy height was significant (r=-0.26) under the high disease pressure in 1991. Coefficients ranged from 0.54 to 0.67 for canopy width, total limb length, limb number, leaflet number and sample weight for destructive samples. Plant height and leaf area were correlated with Sclerotinia blight under higher disease pressure in 1991 (r=-0.44 and 0.46, respectively). Metabolic and physiological resistance (previously measured) failed to predict field performance. Current evidence indicates that moderate levels of metabolic resistance now available to breeders will not be adequate for disease control if environmental (climate, plant growth habit) are conducive for infection and disease development. Future genotype selection procedures must consider the role of plant phenotype in addition to metabolic and physiological resistance responses.

17 On-Farm Evaluation of AU-Pnuts; an Expert Svstem for Control of Leaf Spot Dil!e88e8 of Peanut. P. M. BRANNEN• and P.A. BACKMAN. Department of Plant Pathology, Alabama Agric. Exp. Stn., Auburn Univenity, Auburn AL 36849-5409. AU-Pnuta is a rule-driven, non-computerized expert oyntem for timing of fungicide epplicatioM for control of peanut leaf opot disea5e5, caused by Cel"COllpora arachidicola and Cel"COllporidium penonatum. AU-Pnuts rules incorporate the number or dayn with daily precipitation in exceM or 2.5 mm, occurrence or evening fogu, and five-day rainfall forecaots. Verification (using field triehi) and validation (conducted in Georgia, Florida, and Oklahoma by ExteMion and Research Specialism) of AU-Pnutts Wlll5 conducted from 1989-1991. The next phMe of validation for expert 11Y5tems, on-farm evaluation with potential usen (Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 29:343-360), WM conducted in 1991 with ten peanut producen in five counties or the Wiregrass Region or Alabama. On-farm evaluation included coordination and training of County Agents and volunteer producel'8. The National Weather Service provided information for the predictive portion of AU-Pnutts, and this weather information WBll delivered to producert1 via a toll-free phone service and an aMwering machine. Producel'8 interacted with re5earchert1 by using the answering machine when calling for weather foreCBllts. AU-Pnuta plots COMisted of 1-10 acres of peanuts. Each plot Wlll5 compared to the remainder of the field treated by the farmer's conventional program. Eight of the ten Carmen were able to succe511fully conduct the AU-Pnuts program. The average number of oprayn with AU-Pnuts and conventional programs WBll 5.6 and 6.0 respectively. Spring raiM triggered very early applications with AU-Pnuts. AU-Pnuts triggered initial sprayn on average at 33 DAP (range =28-38 DAP) in non-rotated fields and 36 DAP (range = 30-40 DAP) in rotated fields, while firt1t spray applications for the conventional program averaged 42 DAP (range= 26-61 DAP). Subsequent applications were coordinated with infection periodll. The combination of earliness and timeline55 reaulted in improved di.i!ease control 88 meMured by AUDPC's (p<0.076). Yields were compared in five fields, and AU-Pnutts had better yields in four of these. Based on reaults obtained and suggestions from producert1 and involved personnel, AU-Pnuts wu revised for limited relea5e in 1992.

Influence of Sulfur and Seaweed Extract on Peanut Yield. N.V. NKONGOLO *and P.E. IGBOKWE. Dept. of Agriculture, Alcorn State University, Lorman HS 39096 A field experiment was used to evaluate the effect of 3 levels each of sulfur and NPK boosted liquid seaweed fertilizer on the growth, yield, and yield components of " Colton I 1 " peanut cultivar. Sulfur was applied as gypsum and seaweed fertilizer as Response 9-9-7~ The study vas conducted in 1991, on a Memphis silt loam soil at the Alcorn Branch Experiment Station, Lorman, Mississippi. A split splot arrangement in a randomized complete block experiment design was used in the study, with sulfur levels as main plots and seaweed fertilizer levels as subplots, with 4 replications. Application of 16.80 kg/ha of sulfur increased vine produc­ tion, nodule formations, and number of single-segmented pods over the control, but not numbers and weights for mature pods and kernels, double and triple segmented pods. Immature pods number was decreased by sulfur application. Application of 75 ml of seaweed fertilizer per plot increased all parameters studied except for number of single-segmented pods. Interaction between sulfur and seaweed applica­ tions were significant for all parameters investigated except for plant height.

•

18 BREEDING AND BIOTECHNOLOGY

Transformation of peanuts fArachis 500. I with a peanut stripe virus coat-protein IPStV-CPI gene yja particle bombardment and polvethylene glycol f PEGl treatment of 1 1 2 2 protoplasts. Z.J. U , J.W. DEMSK1 ·, R.L. JARRET , R.N. PITIMAN and K.B. 2 1 2 DUNBAR • Dept. of Plant Path., Univ. of Georgia, Georgia Station; USDA-ARS Regional Plant lntr. Station, Georgia Station, Griffin, Georgia 30223. Plasmid DNA containing either the marker gene coding for P-glucuronidase (GUSI or the PStY-CP gene with the selectable marker gene encoding hygromycin phosphotransferase (hphl was introduced into leaf tissues and protoplasts of wild and cultivated peanuts by particle bombardment or PEG treatment. Foreign gene expression was under the control of the cauliflower mosaic virus 35S promoter and the tml terminator. Transient expression of the GUS gene, detected 48 hours after bombardment, was used to determine optimal transformation conditions. Sub-stringent hygromycin selection on transformed leaf disks of A. villosulicarpa resulted in recovery of resistant shoots and shoot primordia. Plants are being regenerated and will be used to further verify the genetic transformation. A protoplast regeneration system was also established to increase transformation efficiency. Highly regenerable protoplasts of A. paraguariensis were used as a model system to investigate major factors affecting PEG-mediated protoplast transformation. High transformation frequency (up to 5% of total selected protoplast colonies) was achieved by inoculating protoplasts with DNA in a Mg-containing solution, followed by the addition of PEG to a final concentration of 20-25%. Using the optimized conditions, protoplasts isolated from immature cotyledons and leaf-derived callus from various cultivars of cultivated peanut (A. hypogaeal were transformed with the PStV-CP gene. Multiple shoots are being regenerated from protoplast-derived calli. The successful regeneration of transgenic peanut plants will allow us to evaluate the induction of cross protection against PStY from the incorporation of the viral coat-protein gene.

Regeneration of Transgenic Shoots from Long-term Embryogenic Cultures of Arachis

~·P. OZIAS·AKINS •1 , U.F. ANDERSON 2 , J .A. SCHNALL,3 C. SINGSIT 1 , I.E. CLEMENTE 3 , and A.K. UEISSINGER3 . 1Department of Horticulture and 2usDA-ARS, University of Georgia Coastal Plain Experiment Station, Tifton, GA 31793, and 3Department of Crop Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695. Somatic embryos and embryogenic callus can be induced in vitro from immature zygotic embryo explants. Induction and maintenance occurs on a nutrient medium supplemented with the synthetic auxin, picloram. Seven genotypes (one valencia, three virginia/runner. and three spanish) have been compare'd under similar culture conditions for their ability to produce somatic embryos, embryogenic callus, and plants after short·term culture. There were significant differences among genotypes for these responses, but most importantly, all genotypes were competent for somatic embryo and plant formation. Long-term cultures of selected genotypes have been maintained for 12·24 months. A culture protocol that bypasses an embryo maturation step has been imposed to encourage shoot development from apical meristem regions of somatic embryos. Embryogenic callus pieces approximately 25 mm2 containing an estimated 1·5 somatic embryos were cultured on media with either NM or a combination of cytokinins. Subsequent transfer to basal medium and medium supplemented with gibberellic acid allowed the formation of elongated shoots which were subsequently rooted. Rooted shoots transferred to the greenhouse flower and produce pegs. Over 900 shoots have been regenerated from 160 callus pieces in one experiment. Long·term embryogenic cultures were bombarded with DNA-coated microprojectilcs. Plasmid DNA contained a hygromycin·resistance gene (hph) driven by the CaMV 35S promoter. Bombarded callus was grown for one subculture period (about one month) under non-selective conditions and subsequently was transferred to liquid medium containing 20 mg/l hygromycin. After approximately two months, hygromycin·resistant calli were recovered. Two callus lines have shown integration of the hph gene based on amplification of the gene by the polymerase chain reaction and hybridization of the gene to genomic DNA from the transgenic lines. Regenerated shoots from one callus line have all shown the presence of the hph gene based on amplification by the polymerase chain reaction.

19 Development of in vitro Regeneration Approache·s for Valencia-tvne Peanut

Culture of Peanut Zygotic Embrvos for Transformation via Microprolectile Bombardment J.A. Schnall and A.K. Weissinger*, Department of Crop Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh NC 27695·7620.

A method for rapidly producing fertile peanut: (Arachis hypogea) plants from embryo axes was developed for use with microprojectile bombardment. The embryo axes were removed from dry seed, and all pre·exist:ing leaves were removed. The axes were then disinfested in 20% Chlorox• for 2 minutes, rinsed in sterile DI water, and transferred t:o medium. Germination was rapid on HS based, hormone· free medium containing 2% agar, while medium containing 0.6% agar caused embryo axes to sweil and to develop slowly. Representative varieties from all market: types responded well to this procedure, except for the valencia cultivar UPL·PN4, which failed to form new leaflets. Using this method, the apical dome housing the germ line could be exposed for bombardment without compromising the viability of the plant. A chimeric beta·glucuronidase introduced by bombardment into the apical dome was expressed transiently. The frequency of transient expression events was increased by optimization of both culture and bombardment parameters. Many axes can be processed rapidly to provide large numbers of explants needed for successful biolistic transformation of intact tissues without selection. This method is also much less likely to cause chromosomal and developmental abnormalities often encountered with other culture systems.

20 Response of Peanut Cultivars to Different Leafspot Spray Initiation Dates. D. W. GORBET*, F. M. SHOKES and D. A. KNAUFT. University of Florida, North Florida Research and Education Center, Marianna, Fl 32446; North Florida Research and Education C~nter, Quincy, FL 32351; and Agronomy Department, Gainesville, Fl 32611. Differential fnf tiatfon dates for fungicide programs to control late leafspot (£. personatum) were conducted on twelve peanut cultivars in 1990 and 1991. The cultivars Florunner, Sunrunner, Southern Runner, Marc I, AgraTech 127, Okrun, Tamrun 88, GK 7, NC 7, NC 9, NC lOC, and Florigiant were planted on May 31, 1990, and June 11, 1991. Four fungicide programs, using chlorothalonil on a 14 day schedule, were applied as follows: 1) sprays initiated at 30-35 days after planting; 2) two weeks later; 3) four weeks later; 4) sfx weeks later. Treatment spray totals were 7, 6, 5, and 4, respectively. Each cultivar had two harvest dates, at visual maturity (Hl) for the full season spray program and 7-10 days later (H2). Marc I and AgraTech 127 were both early maturing (Hl = 125-128 days). All other cultivars were dug at 132-134 days for Hl, except Southern Runner (Hl 144 days). All cultivars had higher disease levels and lower pod yields as fungicide treatments were decreased. Southern Runner had the least amount of difference among fungicide treatments. A low level of resistance to late leafspot was noted in NC 9. The early maturing cultivars, Marc I and AT 127, appeared to be the most susceptible. The greatest fungicide treatment differences were between 4 vs. 5 sprays on most of the cultivars. Pod yields generally exceeded 4000 kg ha-1 with 6-7 sprays for most cultivars.

New High-Yieldinq Israeli Peanut (Arachis hypoqaea, L.) CUltivars I.S. WALLERSTEIN* and S. KAHN, Dept. of Industrial Crops ARO-Volcani Center, POB 6, Bet Dagan 50250 ISRAEL Peanuts are grown in Israel mainly for export to the European unshelled pod market. Return to growers for "giant" pods (7-9 pods per 28.3 gram) is 25\ greater than that for "choice" (9-11 pods per 28.3 gram). 'Shulamit', the main Israeli peanut cultivar for the past 25 years, has only a 15\ yield of export-quality "giant" pods. Since 1981, we have been breeding peanut cultivars for improved yield, larger pods, and earlier maturity, using both crosses and selections from extant germplasm. Four new cultivars ('Hanoch', 'Shosh', 'Eli', and 'Zecharia') have been released in the past six years. During the three years 1988-1990, we grew the new cultivars and 'Shulamit', digging six replicates of each at 143 and at 157 days after planting (DAP). At 143 DAP, 'Shulamit' produced the highest net pod yield 15347 kg/ha) while the lowest yield was from 'Zecharia' (5073 kg/ha). However, differences were not statistically significant. At 157 OAP, 'Hanoch' produced a net pod yield of 6327 kg/ha, while the average yield of all other cultivars was 5700 kg/ha. At both harvest dates 'Shosh' produced the highest "giant" pod yield (3810 kg/ha at 143 DAP; 4150 kg/ha at 157 DAP) compared to 'Shulamit' (1057 kg/ha at 143 OAP; 1110 kg/ha at 157 OAP).

VICK. Agracetus, Inc., Middleton, WI 53562. A commercially-viable germline transformation system has been developed for peanut (A. hypogaea). The first germline transgenic plant was obtained in Florunner. In this system, cotyledons from sterilized mature seeds were removed to obtain embryonic-axes. The shoot meristems of the embryonic-axes were exposed and bombarded with 1-3'-'m gold .. beads coated with plasmid DNA encoding various genes of interest. Bombarded embryonic­ axes were manipulated to produce multiple shoots which were screened for the reponer gene beta-glucuronidase (gus). Transformed plants were transferred to greenhouse to produce seeds. Pollen from transgenic plants, assayed for GUS to identify putative germline transformants, had expected 1:1 genetic segregation. Rl seeds from plants with GUS­ expressing pollen were analyzed to confirm the transmission and genetic segregation of gus gene in the next generation. By using these procedures, we have transferred genes for Bialaphos-resistance, Tomato Spotted Wilt Virus-coat protein in addition to gus. Transgenic plants have also been obtained from the cultivar Florigiant. We are now focussing on transferring valuable genes determining agronomic or food value traits into additional commercial cultivars.

21 BREEDING FOR RESISTANCE

Evaluation of Advanced Georgia Breeding Lines for White Mold and Rhizoctonia Limb Rot Resistance. W. D. BRANCH* AND T. B. BRENNEMAN. Dept. of Agronomy and Plant Pathology, University of Georgia, Coastal Plain Experiment Station, Tifton, GA 31793- 0748. White mold or southern stem rot (Sclerotium rolfsii Sacc.) and Rhizoctonia limb rot (Rhizoctonia ~ Kuhn) are major soil-borne disease problems in Georgia peanut (~ hypoqaea L.) production. In the past, chemical and cultural controls have only been about 50% effective, thus genetic resistance continues to be a primary objective within the Georgia Peanut Breeding Program as an environmentally safe and cost efficient alternative. During 1989-91, several advanced Georgia breeding lines (candivars) have been evaluated in replicated field tests conducted on a Tifton loamy sand soil type heavily infected with these two pathogens. Disease assessments were made directly after digging, shaking, and inverting each two-row plot (6.1 m long by 1.8 m wide). Results show significant differences exist between the four runner check cultivars and the Georgia candivars. Among the cultivars, Southern Runner had the best overall yield and resistance to white mold, but not to Rhizoctonia limb rot. However, three Georgia candivars averaged >5% higher yield than Southern Runner, and several had comparable or more resistance to white mold and Rhizoctonia limb rot.

Screening peanut Genotyoes for Resistance to Stem Rot Caused by Sc1erotium ro1fsii. F. M. SHOKES*, 0. W. GORBET, University of Florida, North Florida Res. and Educ. Center (NFREC), Quincy, Fl 32351 and NFREC, Marianna, Fl 32446, Z. WEBER, Poznan Agric. University, Poznan, Poland and 0. A. Knauft, Univ. of FL., Gainesville, FL 32611. Eight tests of 54 Arachis hypogaea genotypes were conducted in 1991 to screen for resistance to stem rot (white mold) caused by Sc1erotium rolfsii. The genotypes included the commercial cultivars Florunner, Marc I, Sunrunner, Early Bunch and Southern Runner. Plants were grown 1n 4- inch pots in the laboratory under artificial lights and inoculated with the pathogen at 20 days after planting (OAP). Plants were grown in 6-inch pots in a glasshouse and inoculated with the fungus at 40 OAP. Laboratory and glasshouse studies were performed three times with five replicate pots of each genotype. In two field studies five plants in each of six plots were inoculated at 60 OAP. Field-grown plants were marked with flags prior to inoculation to locate the plants for evaluation. Field plots were irrigated prior to inoculation and the two mornings after inoculation. Inoculum consisted of one sclerotium with actively growing mycelium in the center of a 1- cm disk of potato dextrose agar placed in contact with plant stems in all studies. The isolate used for inoculation had been previously tested for pathogenicity and selected for virulence. Plants were evaluated 4-7 times and scored on a 1-6 scale in which 1 represents a healthy plant and 6 a plant with >50% of the stems wilting and dying. Genotypes were ranked and rankings compared using correlation analysis. Genotypic rankings were most consistent for field tests with coefficients of variation <20%. Genotypes that ranked significantly (Ps_0.05) lower than t;he cultivars Florunner and Sunrunner in all tests and similar or slightly better than Southern Runner in field tests were selected for further testing. Screening of genotypes for resistance to stem rot worked best in field tests. Results indicated that artificial inoculation using these methods may be a practical way to insure uniform infection for differentiation of genotypes. ,

22 Improvements in Screening Techniques for Resistance to Preharvest Aflatoxin Contamination and some Potential sources of 01 2 Resistance. c. c. HOLBROOK , D. M. WILSON ' w. F. ANDERSON'' M. E. WILL2 and M. E. MATHERON3 • 1 USDA-ABS, Tifton, GA; 2 Univ. of Georgia, Tifton, GA; 3 Univ. of Arizona, Somerton, AZ One of the major limitations in breeding for resistance to preharvest aflatoxin contamination (PAC) in peanut (Arachis hypogaea L) has been the difficulty in reliably measuring resistance in the field. The objectives of this research were to develop reliable and efficient field screening techniques and to begin screening the peanut core collection for sources of resistance to PAC. Three systems were examined using Florunner plots at Yuma, Arizona in 1990 (normal planting date, late planting date, and normal planting date with shading during the stress period). Results showed that the best of these systems was a normal planting date without shading. However, the samples had a low mean contamination (228 ppb), unacceptably large error variance (C.V.=223%) and unacceptably large frequency of escapes (43%). It was proposed that the screening technique could be improved by using subsurface irrigation to maintain plant life while imposing an extended drought stress period on the pods. Using this system in 1991, the mean was increased to 1,167 ppb, the c.v. was reduced to 102% and only 4% of the samples were escapes. A two year study examining ten inoculation techniques at Tifton, GA, demonstrated that Aspergillus parasiticus should be applied at midbloom (60 DAP) using corn as an organic carrier. Results from Tifton in 1991 indicated that portable greenhouses which can be move using tractors, can be used to greatly expand the field space suitable for screening for resistance to PAC. Preliminary germplasm screening results indicated a number of potential sources of resistance to PAC in peanut.

Reaction of Arachis interspecific hybrid TP-135-4 to the northern root-knot nematode Meloidogyne hapla. J.L. STARR*, C.E. SIMPSON, and c.s. KATSAR. Department of Plant Pathology and Microbiology, Texas Agricultural Experiment station, College Station, TX 77843; and Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, Stephenville, TX 76401. TP-135-4 is a complex hybrid developed from Arachis hypoqaea cv Florunner, A· batizocoi, A· cardenasii, and A· chacoensis. It is highly resistant to reproduction of the peanut root-knot nematode Meloidogyne arenaria race 1. In one preliminary test, TP-135-4 was r:ated as moderately resistant to the northern root-knot nematode H· ~- To further evaluate the reaction of TP-135-4 to M· h.9.olA, seeds of TP-135-4, Florunner, and Tamnut 74 were germinated in rag­ dolls and then transferred to 15-cm dia pots of a sand-peat soil mix (6:1, v/v) when the roots were ca 5 cm long. One week later, each seedling was inoculated with suspension of 5,000 eggs of M· hfil2JA. After a further eight weeks of growth in a controlled environment chamber at 26 c with a 14 hr day length, plants were harvested and the numbers of nematode eggs per gram of root tissue determined. No difference in numbers of eggs produced among the three genotypes was detected. Florunner supported 1,400 eggs/g root, Tamnut 74 1,100 eggs/g root, and TP-135-4 1,200 eggs/g root. In a second experiment, seedings of Tamnut 74 and TP-135-4 growing in soo-cm3 cups of the sand-peat soil mix were inoculated with 1,500 freshly hatched juveniles of H· hapla. Inoculated seedlings were harvested at weekly intervals and nematodes in the roots stained with acid fuchsin. Although development of the nematodes on TP-135-4 was slightly slower than on Tamnut 74, the differences were not slignificant and egg­ laying adult females were observed on both host genotypes by 21 days after inoculation at 26 c. we have concluded that in contrast to our initial report, TP-135-4 is not resistant to M· ~.

23 Leafspot Resistance of Genotvpes Derived from Crosses of Wild Arachis spp and Virginia Peanut. B. B. SHEW*, H. T. STALKER, and M. K. BEUTE. Departments of Crop Science and Plant Pathology, North Carolina State University, Raleigh NC 27695- 7616. Ten genotypes derived from crosses between wild Arachis spp. and virginia peanut were evaluated in the field for resistance to Cercospora leafspots. NC 6, NC 7, Southern Runner, and GP-NC 343 were included as checks. Genotypes were planted in six replicate plots 3.3 m long x 3.7 m (four rows) wide, and individual plots were bordered on all sides by 7.3 m of soybeans. A plant infected with Cercosporidium personatum was placed in each plot on 12 August 1992. Natural inoculum of Cercospora arachidicola was present at levels sufficient to initiate early leafspot epidemics in susceptible genotypes. Incidence (number of infected leaflets/number of leaflets present) of early leafspot caused by c arachidicola and late leafspot caused by c personatum was estimated weekly in August and September. Defoliation also was determined by counting missing leaflets and total nodes on two stems per plot. Area under disease progress curve (AUDPC) was used to compare the genotypes. All test genotypes had smaller AUDPCs for early leafspot than the most resistant check, GP-NC 343, and five had AUDPCs that were less than half that of GP-NC 343. In contrast, none of the test genotypes had significantly smaller AUDPCs for late leafspot than Southern Runner, and three had AUDPCs that were significantly larger. All test genotypes had less late leafspot than the susceptible cultivars NC 6 and NC 7. Eight of the test genotypes had significantly less defoliation than the most resistant checks (NC 6 and GP-NC 343). Some of the best-ranked genotypes in each disease category had poor rankings in one of the other categories, but some genotypes had resistance to early leafspot and defoliation far superior to commercial cultivars, along with late leafspot resistance equal to Southern Runner.

Late Leafspot. TSWY and Growth Traits within Peanut Core Collection. W.F. ANDERSON* and c.c. HOLBROOK. USDA-ARS, Coastal Plain Exp. Stn., Tifton, GA 31793. The United States peanut germplasm collection contains genes that could have great value to breeders searching for disease resistance. A systematic method of evaluation is required to assess the potential use of genotypes among the 7,000 accessions contained in the collection. A core collection was used to reduce the initial number of genotypes tested while attempting to retain maximum variability. A portion of the core collection (335 plant introductions) was rated for five plant growth traits, late leafspot resistance and tomato-spotted wilt virus (TSWV) resistance. Possible relationships were explored between plant phenotypes or country of origin and disease resistance. Negative correlation was found between erect growth habit and TSWV resistance and a negative correlation was found between maturity and late leafspot resistance. Accessions from South America and Asia had higher incidence of TSWV than those from Africa. Twenty entries did not show TSWV symptoms during the first year of testing in the field. Susceptibility to late leafspot and TSWV were not correlated indicating no genetic linkages. Cluster analyses using plant descriptors were not useful in predicting differences among entries for TSWV infection and late leafspot ratings.

24 Comparison of Components of Resistance to Late Leafspot in Peanut Measured in Different Environments. A.J. CHIYEMBEKEZA, D.A. KNAUFT*, and D.W. GORBET. Dept. of Agronomy, University of Florida, Gainesville 32611 and Marianna 32446. It is not known whether sources of resistance to late leafspot in peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) have similar reactions to the natural pathogen population in different environments. To study these reactions, segregating generations from twelve crosses of peanut were grown at Gainesville, Florida, USA, located 29• 41' N latitude and s2· 20 1 W longitude and the Chitala and Kasinthula Experiment Stations, Malawi, located between 9• 45 1 s and 17" 5' s latitude and 32" 45' E and 36• E longitude. The F2 and F generations were inoculated with late leafspot and evaluated for latent3 period, lesion diameter, and amount of sporulation. Measurements of the components in Florida were positively correlated with those in Malawi. The correlation between latent period measurements was r=0.52; the correlation between lesion diameter measurements was r=0.61, and that between sporulation measurements was also r=0.61. In both locations latent period was negatively correlated with lesion diameter (r=-0.55) and sporulation (r=-0.63); lesion diameter and sporulation amount were positively correlated (r=0.44). Narrow--sense heritability, estimated by parent­ offspring regression, was similar in both environments, averaging near 0.60 for latent period, 0.50 fo~ lesion diameter, and 0.40 for sporulation.

The Interaction between Maturity and J.,eafspot Resistance in Peanut. B.E. FRIESEN*, D.A. KNAUFT, and o.w. GORBET. Dept. of Agronomy, University of Florida, Gainesville 32611 and Marianna 32446. Peanut genotypes have been identified with both high yield potential and good resistance to late leafspot (Cercosporidium personatum (Berk. & curt.) Deighton). However there is a strong relationship in most genotypes, including the cultivar Southern Runner, between late maturity and disease resistance. To explore this relationship two early maturing, leafspot susceptible cultivars, Early Bunch and Marc I, were grown along with two later maturing breeding lines with leafspot resistance, F81206-2 and F76x9. Genotypes were grown for two years both with and without fungicide applications. One-meter sections from each genotype-treatment combination were harvested at 10-d intervals and percentage of pod dry weight, pod darkness, and shelling percentage were recorded. Regression analyses were conducted to determine the relationship of maturity with leafspot resistance ratings. Predicted resistance rating values at a constant percentage dry weight, pod darkness, and shelling percentage were calculated to compare the four genotypes at the same stage of maturity. Disease ratings were higher, indicating greater susceptibility, for Early Bunch and Marc I than for the resistant lines at both a given number of days after planting and at the same maturity. The magnitude of the differences between resistant and susceptible lines was less at a constant physiological maturity. However, disease ratings were still significantly different between resistant and susceptible lines.

25 CURING, PROCESSING, AND UTILIZATION

Antioxidative Activity in Oils Prepared from Peanut Kernels Subjected to Various Treatments and Roasting. R.Y.-Y. Chiou. Department of Food Industry, National Chiayi Institute of Agriculture, Chiayi, Taiwan 60083, Republic of China. Significant antioxidative activity was observed in oil prepared from peanuts subjected to treatments consisting of rehydration, blanching and dehydration, followed by roasting at 160 C for 90 min. The acti­ vity was approximately equivalent to that of 200 ppm TBHQ. After storage of the oil at 62 •c for 40 days, the fatty acid composition was unchanged. Changes in lipid and protein contents, and amino acid profiles resulting from treatments and roasting were minor. Sucrose and free amino acid contents decreased stepwise in a limited range with steps of treatment. However, during roasting, comparatively more sucrose, total amino acid contents and free amino acids were degraded in treated than untreated peanuts. Color of the treated, deskinned and unroasted kernels was darker than untreated kernels. During roasting, both types of kernels had the same color changes. During storage, linoleic acid was much more susceptible to oxidation than other fatty acids.

Oil and Flavor Quality of TSWV Infected Seed. T. ff. SANDERS, A. H. SCHUBERT, and K. L. BETT. USDA, ARS, Market Quality and Handling Research, Box 7624, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7624; Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, Texas A&H University, Yoakum, TX 77995- 0755; and USDA, ARS, Southern Regional Research Center, P. o. Box 19687, New Orleans, LA 70179. Florunner peanuts with red, cracked oeed coats characteristic of Tomato Spotted Wilt Virus (TSWV) infection were examined for size, oil quality and flavor variation. Samples of normal and TSWV seed were collected randomly by electronic color sorting and hand-picking from three locations in Texas. Commercial size diotributions in the samples indicated that higher percentages of TSWV seed were found in the smaller sizes. The oleic/linoleic acid ratio in oil was consistently slightly higher in TSWV seed and oven test stability of oil was correspondingly longer for TSWV seed. Sensory panel evaluation of roasted normal and TSWV peanuts indicated no relevant flavor differences.

26 Response Surface Modeling of Extrusion Processed Full-fat Peanut and Sorghum Multi-mix Blend. J.C. ANDERSON*, X. YAN and B. SINGH. Department of Food Science and Animal Industries, Alabama A&M University, Normal AL 35762. Since peanuts possess high levels of oil, extrusion to form stable snack food forms is hindered unless combinations of whole peanuts with starch-rich, low-fat meals are considered. Development of convenient food model forms for the semi-arid tropics (SAT), such as in West Africa, has been pursued using minimally processed peanuts and sorghum since both remain staples in the food-crop production efforts of the region. An optimization experiment involving three process factors in a central composite design served to set the variables in this study. Yellow sorghum and de-skinned peanut kernels were used to prepare five levels of ground meal combinations (in ratios ranging from 3:1 to 5:1) milled together from the pre­ chilled components to avoid excessive oil separations. Similarly, extruder screw speed rates and meal feeder input rates were assigned at five levels to establish an orthogonal set for experimentation. An Appropriate Engineering AE-303 extruder was employed to form 18 preparations of kibble products which were evaluated in terms of physical parameters of force and work of TexturePress shearing, expansion, bulk density and chemical interactions including water absorption capacity and extractable fat. Additional parameters of machine function were observed including power usage, temperature development in barrel, process water rates applied and moisture levels resulting in the products. Response surface equations were produced from the data using the CADE Optimization application. A tentative optimum process space based upon parameters of product shear, expansion, bulk density and water absorption capacity restricted products to compositions of less than 20% peanut with considerable latitude for the other two process parameters.

Relationship of Kernel Moisture Content to Af latoxin Contamination in florunner and Southern Runner Peanuts. J. W. DORNER*, R. J. COLE and P. D. BLANKENSHIP. USDA, ABS, National Peanut Research Laboratory, Dawson, GA 31742 Florunner and Southern Runner peanuts were grown in two 5.5 m X 12.2 m environmental control plots and subjected to late-season drought stress. One plot contained a 2.54 cm thick layer of polystyrene 7.6 cm below the soil surface to separate the pod and root zones. The root zone (beneath the polystyrene) contained porous rubber tubing for plant irrigation. During the drought stress period, only the pod zone in this plot was stressed while the plants continued to receive water through root zone irrigation (pod stress treatment). In the other plot no polystyrene barrier was present and plants and pods both were exposed to drought stress (total stress treatment) • Plants were harvested by hand from both plots after 42 days of stress. Pods from individual plants were hand-picked, separated into sound and damaged pods, and hand shelled. Peanuts from approximately half the plants were used to determine kernel moisture on an individual plant basis. Peanuts from the remaining plants were used for aflatoxin determination on an individual plant basis. Kernel moisture content was generally more variable in Florunner than in Southern Runner peanuts and moisture contents lower in the total stress treatment. Considerably more Florunner than Southern Runner plants died during the stress period. Aflatoxin contamination (>10 ppb) in kernels from sound pods occurred more frequently (17.5% of plants) in the Florunner cultivar from the total stress treatment than in the Southern Runner cultivar (5% of plants). Aflatoxin contamination in kernels from damaged pods was frequent and very high in the total stress treatment. However, aflatoxin contamination was less frequent and lower in the pod stress treatment.

27 A Sensor to Measure Peanyt Moisture Content While Curing. C.L. BUTTS•. USDA-ARS, National Peanut Research Laboratory, Dawson, GA 31742. Overdrying farmers stock peanuts prior to marketing increases the quantity of split kernels and the risk of high temperature off-flavors. Overdrying occurs due to insufficient monitoring during the curing operation. The current method of monitoring the moisture content of peanuts requires that a sample be obtained periodically from the load of peanuts, shelled and placed in a countertop moisture meter. The time required to properly sample the trailer and process each sample makes monitoring the peanut curing operation very labor intensive. Laborers hired to monitor the curing operation often resort to improper sampling methods, such as removing a sample from the top of the load, to reduce sampling time for each trailer. Improper sampling methods may result in an inaccurate indication of the average peanut moisture content. Improper sampling and the intense labor requirements ,• increase the risk of overdrying. A sensor developed by Applied Instrumentation to monitor moisture content of nut crops such as walnuts and pistachios, was installed in colllnE!rcial peanut drying trailers and calibrated to measure the moisture content of farmers stock peanuts while drying. Sensors were constructed of 2 .4 nmi sheet meta 1 and permanently mounted in the peanut trailers. The sensor output was observed using a handheld portable display unit. During the 1990-91 crop years data was collected to calibrate the moisture sensor and to determine sensor durability. Peanut trailers were loaded according to conventional practice and transported to co11111ercial peanut buying facilities where they were dried from field moisture to a marketable moisture content of 10% w.b. While drying, sensor output was recorded periodically and samples removed simultaneously for moisture determination. Kernel and hull moisture contents were determined using the gravimetric method (ASAE Standard 410.1). Sensor output decreased consistently as moisture content of the peanuts decreased for each individual load of peanuts. However, conventional statistical regression techniques did not result in an acceptable calibration curve due to the load-to-load variability of moisture content for a given sensor output level. Other variables for consideration are the kernel to hull ratio and the temperature and relative humidity of the drying air.

J>eanut_Qy~11tY .. l!!!Pr9~emen.1: J.hrouJlhJ~..

28 Development of an Expert system for curing Peanuts. J. M. TROEGER* and c. L. BUTTS. USDA, ARS, National Peanut Research Laboratory, Dawson, GA 31742 The purpose of an expert system for curing peanuts is to recommend to the dryer operator the appropriate temperature rise and limit to optimize quality, energy use, and drying time. The bulk curing simulation model, PNTDRY, was used to determine drying time, energy use, and estimated percentage of split kernels. Estimated splits was based on the cumulative value of the plenum relative humidity below 50%. These values were determined for a range of maximum and minimum ambient temperatures, initial moistures, and the temperature rise and limit in the plenum. Results are incorporated into an expert system program and in tabular form for non-computer use. The user specifies expected maximum and minimum ambient temperatures for the next 24 hours along with initial moisture of the peanuts. The program (or tables) recommends temperature settings for the dryer which will optimize drying time, energy use, and splits. The program will be evaluated at several buying points during the 1992 harvest season.

Expert Systems for the Peanut Industry. J. I. DAVIDSON1 *, M. C. 1 1 2 1 LAMB , C. L. BUTTS , M. SINGLETARY , J. M. TROEGER , E. J. 1 1 1 1 WILLIAMS , J. s. SMITH and P. D. BLANKENSHIP • USDA, ARS, National Peanut Research Laboratory, Dawson, GA 31742; 2consultant, Albany, GA 31707 Expert systems are likely to be the primary tools for technology transfer and management in the future. Nine expert systems (PNTPLAN, EXNUT, DRYNUT, PNUTPRO, XPDRY, MNUT, SHELNUT, STORNUT, and VNUT) are being developed to reduce economic, food safety, quality, and environmental risks. PNTPLAN is a whole farm planning expert system that provides optimum planning decisions for crop rotation, cash flow, crop insurance, and other economic considerations. EXNUT is an irrigation management expert system that provides optimum decisions for irrigated peanut production. Similarly, DRYNUT is an expert system for managing dryland peanut production. PNUTPRO is a decision role-based system for selecting optimum harvest dates. XPDRY is an expert system for managing the peanut drying process. MNUT is a marketing management system that predicts supply (yield, grade, aflatoxin, outturns, and germination) , demand and pricing of peanuts prior to harvest. SHELNUT is an expert system that provides optimum management decisions for shelling plants. Similarly, STORNUT is an expert system for managing storage facilities. VNUT is an expert system to predict the acceptability to industry of new varieties, to determine optimum methods, and procedures for handling, marketing, and processing of the acceptable varieties. Documentation, status, impact, and future plans for each expert system are discussed.

29 PRODUCTION AND EXTENSION TECHNOLOGY

The Virginia Pesticide Use Survey for Peanut Production in 1990. P. M. PHIPPS•, D. A. HERBERT, JR., and C. W. SWANN. Tidewater Agrie. Exp. Sta., Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Suffolk, VA 23437 Data on pesticide use for production of peanuts (Arachis /1ypogaea L.) were sought from 50 growers or one for every 2000 acres planted in eight counties. Surveys were distributed evenly among growers with > 100 acres and <100 acres of peanuts. Thirty-five growers from seven counties completed the survey. Yields averaged 217 lb/acre above the state average or 3487 lb/acre; representing 4.8% of total yield and 4.4% of the harvested acres. All participants indicated the Peanut Production Guide and extension education meetings were sources of information for decisions on pesticide use. The Lcafspot Advisory Program, Nematode Assay Program and Diagnostic Clinic were used by 96, 37 and 23% of the participants, respectively. Private consultants were employed by 9% of the growers. Two out of every five growers designated Sclerotinia blight and one in every five designated Southern stem rot as responsible for yield losses > 10%. Other diseases and pests were noted at frequencies of one in ten or less. Total input of pesticide active ingredients (a.i.) averaged 17 lb a.i./acrc at an estimated L'OSt of 118 dollars, not including application. An estimated 825 tons of pesticide a.i.at a cost of 12.1 million dollars were used on the 97,000 acres of peanuts planted in 1990. Fungicides, herbicides, insecticides and ncmaticides accounted for 42, 31, 18 and 6% of the total a.i. and 30, 29, 30 and 11% of total cost, respectively. An average of 4.1 sprays of fungicide were made for control of early lcafspot. Chlorothalonil was applied an average of 2.6 times to almost all of the acreage. Cupric hydroxide plus sulfur was the second most widely used fungicide with 66% of the acreage receiving an average of 1.7 applications. lprodione was applied to 19% of the acreage for control of Sclerotinia blight. A ncmaticidc treatment was applied to 53% of the acreage. Ethoprop, fenamiphos, carbofuran and aldicarb accounted for 41, 30, 19 and 10% of the acres treated, respectively. Mctolachlor and alachlor were among the most widely used herbicides, considering all timings of treatment. Commonly used post-emergence herbicides included 2,4-DB, alachlor, acinuorfen and bcntazon. Aldicarb was applied in-furrow at planting to 85% of the acreage for thrips control. About 17% of the acreage was treated subsequently for thrips control, primarily with either carbaryl or accphatc. An additional spray of insecticide was applied to 89% of the acreage and directed primarily at corn carworm. Esfcnvalcrate and carbaryl accounted for 77 and 15% of the acreage treated, respectively. Granular insecticides were applied at pegging to 90% of the acreage for control of southern corn rootworm. Chlorpyrifos was used on 77% of the acres treated. Use of acaricidcs was limited to propargitc on 5% of the acreage.

Spray-Tank-Mix Comoatibi!ity of Manganese Boron. and Fungicide I: Wet Chemistrv. N. L POWELL Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Suffolk, VA. Foliar application to the peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) crop of manganese and boron mixed with pesticides in water is a common practice. This study was conducted to determine the compatibility of mixing manganese with boron, fungicides and several sources of spray water. Spray mixtures of the chelated manganese salt of ethylene diamine tetra-acetate (EDTA) and the inorganic salts of manganese as manganese sulfate (Tecmangam), manganese sulfate monohydrate, manganese chloride, and manganese nitrate were developed with deep-well water, shallow well water, surface (pond) water, and distilled water. These mixtures were also made up in combination with boron as boric acid or disodium octaborate tetrahydrate. In addition all combinations were mixed with the fungicides chlorothalonil or cupric hydroxide plus sulfur. Mixtures were equivalent to normal recommended rates of manganese, boron, and fungicide applied to the foliage in 140 L ha·1 of spray volume. Measurements were made of pH and manganese remaining in solution after filtration. Observations of precipitates forming were noted Because of the high pH of the deep-well water, addition of the manganese inorganic salts caused a precipitate to form in the mixture. The chelated manganese did not precipitate. Addition of disodium octaborote tetrahydrate increased the tank-mix pH of all waters and caused increased precipitation of the manganese inorganic salts but not the chelated manganese. Use of boric acid in the waters lowered the solution pH and allowed all added manganese sources to remain in solution. Spray-tank-mix pH was very critical in keeping all manganese inorganic salts in solution. For all pH levels studied (pH 5.5 to 8.5) the chelated manganese remained in solution without formation of a precipitate. Chemical analysis of the filtrate show that only 75 to 80% of the inorganic salts of manganese remain in solution with disodium octaborate tetrahydrate while 100% of the chelated manganese salt remained in solution. The inorganic salts of manganese and disodium octaborate tctrohydrate should not be mixed with chlorothalonil and none of the manganese materials should be mixed with cupric hydroxide plus sulfur for foliar application.

30 Resoonse of Virginia-Type Peanut Cultivars to Chlorimuron. C. W. SWANN. Tidewater Agricultural Experiment Station, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Suffolk, VA23437 In 1990 and 1991, NC 6, NC 7, NC 9 and NC-V 11 peanut (Arachis hypogaea L) eultivars were evaluated for response to chlorimuron application. In 1990, the NC 9 cultivar was treated with 0.004 lb ai/acre chlorimuron as single treatment 49, 63 and 77 days after emergence (DAE) as sequential treatments 49 + 63 and 49 + 77 DAE and with 0.008 lb ai/acre as a single treatment 63 or 77 DAE. In 1991, the NC 9 cultivar was treated with 0.008 lb ai/acre chlorimuron 35, 49, 63, 70, 77 and 91 DAE. NC 6, NC 7, NC 9 and NC-V 11 cultivars were treated with 0.008 and 0.016 lb ai/acre chlorimuron at 63 DAE in 1990 and with 0.005, 0.008 and 0.016 lb ai/acre at 77 DAE in 1991. In 1990, application of chlorimuron at 0.008 lb ai/acre at 63 DAE and 0.015 lb ai/acre 63 DAE reduced yield of the NC 9 cultivar. In 1991, yield of NC 9 peanuts treated with 0.008 lb ai/acre chlorimuron was significantly greater than untreated peanuts. In 1990, row definition of NC 9 at harvest was significantly improved with 0.004 lb ai/acre chlorimuron applied sequentially at 49 + 63 DAE and row definition of the NC 9 and NC-V 11 cultivars was significantly improved with the 0.008 lb ai/acre applied at 63 DAE. In 1991, 0.008 lb ai/acre chlorimuron applied at 35, 49, 63 and 70 DAE significantly improved row definition of NC 9.

Comparison of Plow Laver and pegging Zone Soil Test Results in Georoia STEVEN C. HODGES" and G. GASCHO. University of Georgia, Tifton, GA. Differences in calcium recommendations for runner-type peanuts have been closely examined in Alabama, Georgia and Florida in recent years as part of a regional project to develop uniform Ca recommendations for peanuts. Cooperative efforts have pointed out several areas of research needed to fully integrate Ca research into useful recommendations. Although extensive calibration results are available within the region, differences in interpretation remain. Analytical methods were initially thought to play a role in these varying interpretations, but results of a sample exchange ruled this out as a major source of difference. Close examination of the calibration data indicate that some differences in soil sampling methodology could influence interpretation. In Alabama, samples for determining critical Ca levels have typically been taken from the "plow layer• (6-8 in depth) at the end of the growing season. In Georgia, samples were taken from a 6-8 in depth in the fall or spring prior to planting and/or from a 2-3 in depth in the pegging zone after peanuts emerged. In this study, microplot areas (30 ft by 30 ft) were located in 25 fields. Microplots were sampled prior to deep turning in the spring (6 in depth) and in the pegging zone 10-15 days after emergence (3 inch depth). Additional samples will be collected in the fall prior to harvest. The data was analyzed to determine the variation in calcium concentration following tillage, time of sampling and sample depth. Although all analysis are not complete at this time, a preliminary comparison of the results show differences in Ca concentration averaged around 80 lb per ac. Where plow depths were greater than 6-8 in, Ca concentrations were significantly lower in the 3 in samples than in the 6 in samples. This was apparently caused by dilution with acidic subsoil. In other cases, Ca levels in the upper 3 in were increased after deep turning. The results indicate that sampling depth must be similar to actual plow depth if plow layer samples taken in the fall are to be used to evaluate soil Ca status for peanuts. A better alternative for many growers will be the use of pegging zone samples taken after peanuts &merge.

Phosphorus and Potassium Fertilization on Peanut. D. L. HARTZOG* and J. F. ADAMS, Auburn University, Headland, AL 36345. Direct fertilization of peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) has traditionally shown no yield increases when crops in rotation have been fertilized according to good management practices. Recently, direct P and K fertilization has resulted in yield increases. Eight on-farm experiments were conducted from 1987 to 1991 throughout the Wiregrass area of Alabama. The experimental treatments consisted of a check (no P or K), 80 lb P205, 80 lb KzO, and 80 lb P205 and K20 per acre. Three of the experiments had increased yield due to P application. Soil-test p for these experiments ranged from 4 to 7 lb/acre, while nonresponsive sites had soil-P ranging from 13 to 81 lb/acre. All sites that responded to P application were following long-term bahiagrass rotations. Also, three of eight on-farm experiments had increased yield due to applied K. The soil-test K ranged from 10 to 18 lb/acre of K for the deficient sites. This was expected due to previously conducted research. This research shows that peanuts following long-term grass rotation or idle land may require direct P and K fertilization.

31 PRODUCTION AND SEED TECHNOLOGY

Row Pattern Demonstrations in Georgia. J.P. BEASLEY, JR.* and J .A. BALDtiiii. The University of Georgia, Tifton, GA. The predominant row pattern used in planting peanut (Arachis hrpogaea L.) in Georgia is two rows per bed spaced in a range from 81 to 97 cm apart. Surveys of County Extension Agents indicate five percent or less of the peanut acreage in Georgia is planted to a row pattern other than the conventionally spaced single rows. Row spacing studies in peanut have been conducted since the 1920's, mostly evaluating evenly-spaced rows on a bed, ranging from five rows 18 cm apart to the more common spacing of two rows 91 cm apart. Weed control, digging, inverting, and combining were the reasons most commonly listed why closely-spaced, multiple rows per bed were not as successful as two rows 81 to 97 cm apart. More recent research has examined the twin row pattern. This pattern consists of two sets of twin rows per bed, with each set of twins spaced 18 to 25 cm apart. Demonstrations were established in Georgia in 1990 evaluating the response of different runner­ type cultivars to twin rows (twins spaced 18 cm apart) compared to single rows 91 cm apart on a 182 cm bed. Yield increases of 565 kg ha-1 and 426 kg ha-1 were obtained on twin rows of 'Florunner' and 'Southern Runner', respectively, compared to single rows. In another demonstration, the new cultivar 'AT 127' from AgraTech Seeds, Inc. was evaluated on twin rows and single rows. AT 127 is more determinant in fruiting habit and produces more of a "tap-root" crop than Florunner. Twin rows of AT 127 had a non-significant yield increase (LSD .05=780) of 337 kg ha-I over single rows, while twin rows of Florunner had a significant yield increase of 889 kg ha-1 over single rows in the same test.

Diamond Shaoed Seeding of Sjx Peanut Cultivars. R. W. MOZINGO• and F. S. WRIGHT. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University and USDA-ARS, Tidewater Agricultural Experiment Station, Suffolk, VA. Six large-seeded virginia-type peanut (Arachis hypogaea L) cultivars (NC 7, VA 81B, NC 9, NC-V 11, VA-C 92R, and Aorigiant) were planted in diamond shaped seed spacings of 6 x 6, 12 x 12, and 18 x 18 inches. The objective of this 3-year study conducted at the Tidewater Agricultural Experiment Station in Suffolk, Virginia was to determine the influence of seed spacings on the yield, grade, and plant growth of peanuts. A randomized complete block, split-plot design was used with cultivars as the whole plot and seed spacings as the split-plot. Significant differences as expected were obtained between years and cultivars for all characteristics. Closer seed spacings resulted in higher yield, value, sound mature kernels and total kernels and lower percentage of other kernels. The 6 x 6, 12 x 12 and 18 x 18 inch seed spacings had yields of 5299, 4908, and 4352 pounds and values of 1697, 1540, and 1353 dollars per acre, respectively. Sound mature kernels were 69.7, 68.2 and 67.4% and total kernels were 73.2, 72.3 and 71.8% for the 6 x 6, 12 x 12 and 18 x 18 inch seed spacings, respectively. Other kernels decreased with closer seed spacing with 1.7, 2.0 and 2.3% recorded for the 6 x 6, 12 x 12 and 18 x 18 inch spacings. respectively. Plants had taller main stems (15.5, 12.0 and 9.0 inches) and longer cotyledonary lateral branches (19.8, 18.9 and 17.9 inches) respectively with the 6 x 6, 12 x 12 and 18 x 18 seed spacing, respectively. Significant cultivar x seed spacing interactions were indicated for yield and value. All cultivars had an increase in yield and value with closer seed spacings; however, the magnitude of difference between cultivars created the interactions.

Yield and Grade of Florunner Peanut Following Two Years of 'Tifton 9' Bahiagrass, Corn or Peanut. J. A. BALDWIN. University of Georgia, Tifton, GA. Peanut (Arachis hrpogaea L.) following two or three years of grass crops is recom­ mended by Extension Services in peanut producing states. Three years of continuous peanut (' Florunner') was compared to peanut following two years of 'Tifton 9' bahiagrass (Paspalum ~ Flugge) or corn (Zea~ L.). Plots were four rows 90 cm by 20 m and planted during 1991 in a randomized complete block design re­ plicated four times. Yields following 'Tifton 9' bahiagrass, corn, and continuous peanut were 4170, 3520, and 2960 kg ha-1, respectively, and significantly different at the P5'· OS level. No differences occurred in Total Sound Mature Kernals (TSMK) or other-grade factors.

32 An Index to Assess Quality of Peanut Seeds. D.L. KETRING. USDA-ARS, Plant Science Research Laboratory, Southern Plains Area and Dept. of Agronomy, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK 74075. Seed testing has been developed to aid agriculture in avoiding some of the hazards of crop production by furnishing information about seeds that are to be used for planting purposes. The ultimate goal of the test is to determine the value of seeds for field planting and to compare the value of different seed lots. Further knowledge of temperature extremes that affect peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) seed quality (germination and seedling vigor) could be of value to provide additional information concerning peanut seed quality. Temperatures of about 50 °C were attained under natural warehouse-like storage conditions in a previous study. The objective of this study was to examine the temperature/time relationship effects on peanut seed quality beginning at 50 °c. Germination was not significantly affected while there was a significant reduction in seedling vigor by a 48-hour exposure to 50 °c. Severe damage to seedling vigor and significant reduction of germination occurred after 168-hour exposure to 50 °c. Field emergence followed the same trends as germination and seedling vigor. Correlations of field emergence with germination and rapidly growing seedlings was positively significant (P < 0.01) and negatively significant (P < 0.10) with slow growing seedlings, respectively. A "vigor Index" (VI) was positively correlated with field emergence. Although yield was not significantly different among treatments, VI and yield were positively correlated (r = 0.797, P < 0.10). Repeated exposures to adverse temperature had additive effects in reducing seed quality. Seedling growth (vigor) is more sensitive to adverse temperature than germination. A vigor index calculated from both germination and seedling growth provided a sensitive indicator of reduced seed quality.

Peanut Gennination Related to Potassium. Calcium and Magnesium in Seed. Hulls and

Soils. G. J. GASCHO*. W. R. GUERKE 1 M. B. PARKER and T. P. GAINES. University of Georgia and Georgia Department of Agriculture, Tifton. GA. Calcium (Ca) concentrations in soil and its ratios with potassium (K) and magnesium (Mg) are important detenninants of yield, grade and germination of peanut (Arachis ~ L.). Fourteen replicated field experiments were conducted over 3 years on sandy loams, loamy sands, and sands to relate seed germination to seed, hull, and soil concentrations and ratios in order to more closely describe the chemical environment conducive to produce seed with adequate germination. Experimental sites were chosen on the basis of low Mehlich 1 (0.05 !i HCl in 0.025 !i H2so4) soil test calcium. -Pre~lant incorporated lime and bloom gypsum treatments were applied to both runner- and virginia-type peanuts. Germination varied widely from less than 10% to greater than 90% and was significantly correlated with soil Ca during seed development as well as with seed and hull Ca. When experiments were combined, maximum germination was attained at 0.64 g/kg seed Ca and 2.53 g/kg hull Ca for runner-type peanut and 0 .. 61 g/kg seed Ca for virginia-type peanut. Significant correlations were also determined for seed Ca/(K+Ca+Mg) with maximum gennination occurring at 0.08 for runner-type peanut and 0.07 for Virginia-type peanut. Even though maximum germination was described via significant curvilinear equations, germination from peanuts grown on low Ca status sands was not adequate for produc­ ing acceptable quality seed in several experiments, especially for virginia-type peanut. For a given Ca status, gennination was greater for peanuts grown on finer textured loam soils than coarse textured sands.

33 Sample Mixing In a Eul!-Sjze peanut Combine B.J. BRECKE*. University of Florida Agricultural Research and Education Center, Jay, FL 32565. Questions have arisen over the years concerning sample mixing from plot to plot when a full­ size commercial peanut combine Is used for harvest. If excessive mixing occurs, tests for grade, chemical residue or other quality characteristics might provide unreliable data. A study was conducted In 1990 and 1991 to evaluate the amount of mixing that oca.irs. Peanuts (2 rows by 7.6m) that had been Inverted and allowed to field dry for 3 days were colored with various shades of latex paint so that nuts from other than the plot being harvested could be Identified after passing through a Ulllston 1500R peanut combine frtted with a bagging attachment. Two combines, one produced In 1966 and the other In 1968, were used. The combines were allowed to clean-out for either 15, 30 or 45 seconds before moving on to the next plot. Results indicated that a 15 second clean-out allowed 1.8 kg of nuts to mix with the plot sample whlle either a 30 or 45 second clean-out allowed 1.4 kg to mix. The amount of mixing was consistent regardless of total sample size (ranging from 5 to 9 kg) or age of combine. It has been suggested that much of this mixing may be due to the amount of peanuts remaining In the bottom of the augar which transfers the nuts from the combine separator to the duct leading to the bagger/hopper. However, only 0.4 kg could be recovered from this augar after a 45 second clean-out leaving at least 1 kg of nuts unaccounted for. Depending on sample size, this can still be a significant percentage of the sample. Therefore, changing to a combine that eliminates the transfer augar would not seem to be a solution to this problem.

34 ENTOMOLOGY

Tbrips Overwintering in Relation to Peanut Emergence in North Carolina. R. L. BRANDENBURG and J. D. BARBOUR.* Dept. of Entomology, Box 7613, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7613. Overwintering biology is an important factor relating to the ability of thrips to transmit tomato spotted wilt virus (TSW) into newly planted peanut. In North Carolina, thrips can be found on peanut seedlings before the seedlings emerge from the soil. In a two year study, both emergence and exclusion cages were used in order to test the hypothesis that thrips are overwintering on site in fields planted in peanut or a crop planted in rotation vi th peanut, and that these overwintering thrips attack and damage newly emerging peanut seedlings. In 1990 and 1991, thrips numbers and thrips damage were significantly lover on peanut plants inside of emergence and exclusion cages than on peanut plants outside of these cages. In 1991, the experiment was conducted in corn planted in peanut the previous year. The number of thrips found on corn seedlings inside of emergence cages was significantly lower than that found on corn seedlings outside of emergence cages. In 1991, all thrips collected from corn and peanut plants w~re identified as Frankliniella ~. a vector of TSW.

Tobacco Thrips Control Alternatives and Effects on Peanut Maturity and Yield. D.A. HERBERT, JR.• and C. W. SWANN. Dept of Entomology and Dept of Crop and Soil Environmental Sciences, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Tidewater Agricultural Experiment Station, Suffolk VA 23437. Alternative treatments were compared to aldicarb (Temik 15G) for control of tobacco thrips in Virginia-type peanuts. Oxamyl (Vydate L) was applied as a preplant incorporated band. In-furrow treatments included acephate (Orthene 75S) applied either as a liquid band or dry to seed, and phorate (Thimet 15G and 20CR). Postemergence treatments were applied either alone in 12-inch bands at LGC (2 weeks after plant), or tank-mixed with herbicides and broadcast EPO (4 weeks after plant). LGC treatments included acephate, carbaryl (Sevin XLR PLUS), lambda-cyhalothrin (Karate lEC), and Danitol 2.4EC. EPO treatments included acephate tank-mixed with paraquat, acifluorfen or pyridate. Thrips injury was determined weekly using a visual rating scale. Maturity was determined using the Hull­ Scrape maturity assessment method on three digging dates at weekly intervals beginning September 10. Yield was based on combining, drying (7% moisture) and weighing 80 row feet of peanuts per plot. All treatments with acephate and phorate provided excellent levels of thrips control (less than 25% injured leaves) that were equal to that of aldicarb. Hull­ scrape ratings indicated that the percentage of pods in darker categories (indicating maturity) was higher in treatments where severe thrips and herbicide injury was prevented. Differences in maturity ratings became less distinct with later digging dates. Yields were generally higher where thrips and herbicide injury was prevented and at later digging dates. Although thrips control was equal with acephate and aldicarb, yields were generally higher with aldicarb except where fumigation with metham-sodium (Vapam) had been done prior to planting.

35 Management of Thrips on Peanuts in Alabama Integrating Cultural and Insecticidal Control Practices •. J. R. WEEKS* and A. K. HAGAN. Department of Entomology and Plant Pathology, respectively, Auburn University, AL 36849. Studies were conducted on runner peanut varieties in Alabama from 1987 through 1991 to evaluate the effects of cultural management practices and insecticide treatments on thrips populations, plant damage, tomato spotted wilt (TSW) incidence and peanut yield. Studies where planting dates were manipulated indicated that April planted peanuts consistently had higher levels of thrips than Hay or June plantings. Compared to April and June plantings Hay planted peanuts had fewer th rips, less TSW and higher yields. Flo runner, GK-7 and Southern Runner peanut varieties were evaluated for thrips populations, thrips damage, TSW incidence and yields. Southern Runner consistently had less TSW and yielded as well as the other varieties; however, thrips populations among varieties were not significantly different. The inclusion of an at-plant insecticide treatment with either of these two cultural management practices did not affect TSW incidence or yield, although thrips populations and thrips damage were significantly reduced by the insecticide treatment.

Wjrewpnns as Pests of J>eanuts jn Georgia S. L. BROWN*. University of Georgia, Rural Development Center, Tifton, GA 31793. Larvae of beetles in the family Elateridae (click beetles) have been recognized as occasional pests of peanuts for many years. In most peanut-producing states, wireworms are not considered to be an important insect pest of peanuts and treatments are rarely necessary. In Georgia, entomologists have ranked wirewonns as the most important insect pest of peanuts six out of the last 10 years. Three on-farm evaluations of insecticides for wireworm control revealed infestation levels of 4.2, 23.6, and 26.5% damaged pods in the untreated controls. At all three sites, percent damage ratings declined during digging and again during combining. Damage ratings of harvested peanuts gave a poor indication of actual damage levels in the field. In a replicated experiment, percent damage ratings taken 114 days after planting (OAP) indicated that chlorpyrifos applied either pre-plant incorporated or 44 OAP resulted in significantly less damage than with chlorpyrifos applied 86 DAP. Yields were not significantly different possibly due to heavy lesser cornstalk borer damage that occurred just prior to harvest. Four different wireworm species were collected from the test plots. The number of adult Elaterid beetles collected in pitfall traps steadily declined during the sampling period July through September. In separate tests during 1990 and 1991, 'Southern Runner' had less wireworm damage than 'Florunner' even though wireworm populations on the two varieties were not different. In 1991, significantly less wireworm damage was found on peanuts planted on twin rows than on single 36 inch rows.

36 ECONOMICS

PNTPLAN An Expert Systems Whole-Farm Planning Model Designed to Optimize Peanut-Based Rotation pecisions. H. C. LAMB*, J. I. DAVIDSON and C. L. BUTTS. USDA, ARS, National Peanut Research Laboratory, Dawson, GA 31742. Significant structural and environmental changes have affected SE peanut production. Peanut acres steadily increased from 770,000 acres in 1980 to more than 1.3 million acres in 1991. Acreage devoted to traditional rotation crops (i.e. corn, grain sorghum, cotton) decreased significantly during the same time periods, resulting in a decrease in the length and suitability of peanut rotations. PNTPLAN was developed to provide a whole-farm plan on a field-by-field basis for all potential enterprises available for production. Inputs include information regarding the whole-farm operation, rented farms, indi viciual field production history, production costs and policy regulations. Based on peanut rotation data from commercial fields from 1980 through 1991, PNTPLAN will optimize peanut-based rotation decisions and prepare an optimum rotation sequence subject to the physical and financial constraints of an individual farm. PNTPLAN will prompt the user for additional information as the optimization routines are running. It is suggested that the farmer run PNTPLAN for 1, 2, 3 and even 4 years to examine the differences and determine which plan is most consistent with the objectives of the farmer. Sensitivity analysis allows farmers to develop several farm plans under various yield, _price and policy scenarios to examine the changes in farm structure, income and risk associated with each scenario. Data gathered with cooperating farmers in the Southeast indicated that many farmers were not fully aware of actual production costs until the itemized budget analyses were performed. PNTPLAN suggested several changes in farm structures ranging from planted acres of peanuts and other crops to the restructuring of farm debt •

.s..tr.llt.tunl .Jr_encl.$ Jn_SOU.ltlW!!-5.tP_e..a11Yl.~ai~. F.D. HILLS. JR.* Dept. of Agriculture and Environment, Abilene Christian University, Abilene TX 79699. Changes in the world and U.S. political environment could precipitate the dismantling of the U.S. peanut program. The possibility arises that structural changes could occur among traditional U.S. peanut production regions. Therefore, familiarity with past and present structural characteristics provide a basis for measuring potential future changes. Secondary data were obtained to compare specific structural attributes of Southwest (i.e., Texas, Oklahoma, New Mexico) and U.S. peanut production. Structural characteristics examined included the number of peanut farms, peanut acreage, and quantity of peanuts produced. Southwest peanut farms comprised 16% of total U.S. peanut farms in 1982--rising to 17% in 1987. Similarly, the quantity of peanuts produced in the Southwest rose from 15% to 19% of total U.S. production, although Southwest peanut acreage fell from 25% to 23% of total U.S. peanut acreage. Southwest irrigated peanut farms fell from 46% to 40% of total U.S. irrigated peanut farms, while Southwest irrigated peanut acres fell from 51% to 44% of the total. Other attributes analyzed were farm size, farms producing peanuts by Standard Industrial Classification, business organization of farms, age and i>rincipal occupation of farm operators, farm operator tenure, and the value of agricultural products sold. Individual county trends were also considered to assess ihternal changes within the region.

37 ta: Anal sis of Some Alternative A roaches. R. H. MIUER. USDA-ASCS, To co a Peanuts Ana ys1s Division, Was ington, DC 20013. The Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 requires that the national poundage quota must equal the quantity of peanuts estimated to be devoted to danestic edible, seed, and related uses in each marketing year., b.Jt not less than 1.35 million tons. Over. thr.ee-four.ths of the national quota r.epr.esents danestic sales. This study shows that discrepencies between expected and r.epor.ted danestic use, inability to consider. distrib.Jtion of effective quota, and increased imports may result in sizable quota crushing losses for. Carmodity Credit Corporation (CCC) in fiscal years 1992 and 1993. The analysis indicates delaying the quota-setting to mid-February (coincident with the support level) has an economic rationale and also would enhance the knowledge base for the upcoming marketing years. An alter.native procedure of manufacturer. or sheller-supplied purchase intentions is examined. Considering the carryover. of undermar.ketings '*ten setting the prospective quota would reduce the crop-size variation and the potential for. CCC loans. The marketing quota can be adjusted to account for. projected or. anticipated imports but not for. changes in imports after. the marketing quota is set (e.g., July 1991). After. initially proposing the 1992-cr.op quota at 1,610,000 tons, USDA set the quota at 1,540,000 tons, slightly below the 1991-cr.op quota. The final quota (announced in December. 1991) recognized that domestic food use would gr.ow at a slower. r.ate than fir.st proposed. F.ar.ly 1992 estimates indicate that recovery in domestic food use for. the 1992 r.iar.keting year. is not projected to materialize and the quota may be consider.ably over.stated. The change in domestic edible use following the 1980 and 1990 droughts ar.e canpar.ed.

An £xamjnatjon of Federal Crop Insurance as a Rjsk Management Tool jn Southeast Peanut Productjon. W. DON SHURLEY. Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, University of Georgia, Rural Development Center, P.O. Box 1209, Tifton, GA. 31793. Peanut acreage in the Southeastern United States bas expanded rapidly in recent years. In most years this has been due to annual increases in a farm's basic peanut quota. The acreage of additional or non-quota peanuts has also increased. Farmer acreage decisions are influenced by the comparative net returns of other crops, price and yield risk, and financial or credit considerations. A combination of crop insurance and price contracting of peanuts greatly limits income risk for the grower and credit risk for the lender. Risk considerations are likely a major factor contributing to increased peanut acreage in Georgia and the Southeast. The percentage of peanut acres insured bas increased dramatically in recent years. Data examined since 1980, however, reveals that peanut crop insurance also has an unfavorable Loss Ratio. Changes in insurance could be forthcoming. An example •Area 19• farm from Mitchell County, Georgia was used to illustrate the risk management properties of crop insurance. A computerized model was developed to calculate and compare net returns and risk in net returns for uninsured peanuts versus 7S percent, 65 percent, and SO percent coverage. Probability distributions of net returns were developed for uninsured and each level of coverage. The optimal level of insurance is dependent on the amount of quota, additional or non-quota acreage, amount and combination of irrigated and non-irrigated acres, and yield history. Results suggests that crop insurance can completely eliminate the possibility of negative returns above variable costs even at the SO percent level of coverage. Uninsured peanuts had about the same net return but double the risk of peanuts insured at the 75 percent level. The model will continue to be developed with cooperation from FCIC. The model can be useful to assist growers in selecting the most risk­ efficient level of coverage for their peanut enterprise. The model can also help analyze the impacts of any future changes in crop insurance provisions. Additional work will focus on combinations of insurance and contracting as risk management tools.

38 PLANT PATHOLOGY

Detection of J>eanut Stripe Virus in Peanut Seed Using the Polymerase Chajn Reaction. J.L. 1 1 2 2 1 SHERW000 ·, R.E. PENNINGTON , B.G. CASSIDY , and R.S. NELSON • Dept. of Plant Pathology, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK 74078 and 2The Samuel Roberts Noble Foundation, Plant Biology Division, Ardmore, OK 73402. Peanut stripe virus (PStV), a member of the potyvirus group, infects Arachis hypogaea L. and is a significant problem in Southeast Asia, including the People's Republic of China, Thailand, and the Philippines. No cultivated peanut with resistance to PStV has been reported. PStV is seed transmitted, so the distribution of virus free-seed for planting could delay the spread of PStV to new geographical regions. The non-germ end of peanut seed can be removed and assayed for virus without significantly affecting germination. Thus, seed lots can be screened for virus infection. This has been done with serology, but the limit of sensitivity of serological assay is about one virus infected seed per thirty seeds. An assay that could amplify and specifically detect the viral nucleic acid could circumvent this problem. The polymerase chain reaction (PCR) permits the specific amplification of a segment of nucleic acid and potentially may be used to detect a single copy of a nucleic acid. Our purpose was to examine the use of the PCR for detection of PStV in seed. A method entailing an initial extraction in amended Tris-HCI buffer followed by several phenol extractions gave the best results of five methods to obtain viral RNA suitable for cDNA synthesis. The cDNA was amplified in the PCR using primers based on the sequence of the viral RNA around the coat protein region. Of the sets of primers utilized, a set that resulted in an approximately 400 base pair product gave the most consistent results. As little as 16 pg of virus could be detected in assays using previously isolated PStV. Similar results were obtained with an extract of seed to which purified virus had been added. Seed were obtained from peanut that had been inoculated with PStV and the seed were assayed by ELISA. Seed positive in ELISA were also positive by PCR. When PStV infected seed were mixed with other seed and tested by the PCR, the sensitivity of the assay by PCR was variable. Approaches to obtain consistent results are being evaluated.

Comparison of ~idden and Apparent Spotted Wilt Epidemics in Peanut A. K. CULBREATH, Dept. of Plant Pathology, J. W. TODD, Dept. of Entomology, The University of Georgia, Tifton, CA 31793, and J. W. DEMSKI, Dept. of Plant Pathology, The University of Georgia, Griffin, CA 30223. A block (12 two-row beds wide by 80 ft long) of Florunner peanut (Al'..1!£hi.li ~ L.) was planted on 15 April 1991 at the University of Georgia, Attapulgus Rese~rch Farm, Attapulgus, GA. The block was divided into four tiers of plots 6 ft wide by 20 ft long. Ten of the 12 plots in each tier were used for destructive sampling for detection of latent tomato spotted wilt virus (TSWV) infections. One plot per tier was chosen by random selection without replacement each week beginning 2 Hay for sampling of the plant population for incidence of spotted wilt based upon serological detection of the virus. For each plot sampled, one 3-ft section was selected at random from each row. The tap root from each plant in the section was assayed for TSWV by use of ELISA with commercially available antiserum to the common or "L" strain of TSWV. A total of 160 plants were collected and assayed each week for 17 weeks. After all ten plots in each tier had been sampled once, the random selection process was repeated. Among the root samples, percent of plants testing positive for TSWV increased linearly from 30 until 130 days after plant emergence. Two plots from each tier were designated as plots for monitoring the incidence of spotted wilt, based upon foliar symptoms. In these plots, incidence of symptomatic plants was determined on 17 July, 29 July and 12 August. Incidence indicated by serological tests of roots ranged from two to three times higher than was indicated by foliar symptoms at respective sampling dates. Final incidence of infection among the root samples was greater than 20% according to ELISA results compared to only 7% apparent incidence of spotted wilt based upon foliar symptoms.

39 Variability in the Hon>hology and Germinability of Cercospora arachidicola Isolates. P.V. SUBBA RAO, J,L. RENARD, F. WALIY~. P. SUBRAHKANYAH, D.H. SMITH and D. McDONALD. Legllllles Program, ICRISAT, Patancheru 502 324, Andhra Pradesh, India, JRHO-CIRAD, B.P. 5035, 34032 Montpellier, France, ICRISAT, B.P. 12404, Niamey, Republique de Niger, SADCC/ICRISAT Groundnut Project, P.O. Box 1096, Lilongwe, Malawi. Sixteen isolates of Cercospora arachidicola; causal agent of the early leaf spot of peanut were obtained from 14 peanut-producing countries world-wide, and the variability in morphology and germinabilily of their conidia was studied. Conidial length and nlllllber of septa per conidium varied significantly (P.::0.05) between isolates. When grown on peanut leaves the Nigerian isolate had the longest conidia (99.8 pm) and the highest number (10.96) of septa per conidium and the Senegalese isolate had the shortest conidia (82,5 pm) and the lowest number (8,46) of septa per conidium. For all the isolates except the one obtained from ICRISAT, the conidia were significantly longer (P.::0,001) when grown on peanut leaves than when grown on oat meal agar supplemented with peanut leaf extract, The germinahility of the isolates did not vary significantly and aJl the isolates had more than 84% gennination. Interestingly, the average number of cermtubes per conidiU111 vari.ed significantly between isolates. The more pathogenic isolates had much higher numbers of germtubes per cnnidium than the less pathogenic isolates. Studies are in progress lo compare the pathogenicity of these isolates on a set of peanut genotypes.

Biological Control of the Late Leafspot Fungus with a Mvcoparasite. D.M. PORTER* and A.A. TABER. USDA-AAS, Tidewater Agricultural Experiment St.ltion, Suffolk, VA 23437 and 210 Forest Drive, LaVale, MD 21502. The mycoparasite, ~ pulvjnata (Berk. and M. A. Curtis) Arx., parasitized the late peanut leafspot pathogen Phaeoisariopsis personata (Berk. and M. A. Curtis) Arx. = Cercosporidium personata (Berk. and M. A. Curtis) Deighton but did not parasitize Cercospora arachidicola S. Hori, the early leafspot pathogen in Virginia peanut (Arachis hypogaea L) fields. Peanut leaflets used in the study were obtained from a field site planted to the variety NC 6. Leafspot fungicides had been used at recommended rates. Over 90% of the lesions which were observed throughout the field were caused by .Q.. arachidicola; however, late leafspot lesions were observed in localized areas within the field. Leaflets, exhibiting mostly late leafspot lesions were collected at random from several areas within the field site. Individual lesions of both late and early leafspot were observed for evidence of colonization by Q. pulvjnata. The total number of lesions observed with typical .Q.. arachidicola lesions and f. personata lesions was 2,022 and 9,785, respectively. Only lesions caused by f. personata were colonized by Q. pulvinata. Abaxial surface lesions and adaxial surface lesions were colonized by Q. pulvinata at a frequency of 2. 7°/o and 0. 7%, respectively. About 60% of the colonized lesions were adjacent to leaflet midrib. This is the first report in Virginia of Q. pulvinata parasitizing lesions on peanut leaflets caused by the late leafspot fungi.

40 Hairv Indigo for the Management of Meloidogyne arenaria in Peanut. D.G. ROBERTSON•, R. RODRIGUEZ-KABANA and L. WELLS. Department of Plant Pathology, Auburn University, Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station, Auburn, AL 36849. The value of hairy indigo (lndigofera hirsuta) as a rotation crop for the management of root-knot nematode (Meloidogyne arenaria) in 'Florunner' peanut (Arachis hypogaea) was studied for six years (1986-1991) in a field at the Wiregrass substation, near Headland, Alabama. Hairy indigo supported low juvenile populations of the nematode in soil. Yield of peanut without nematicide treatment following one year of hairy indigo was 12.7% higher than that from monoculture peanut without nematicide [P(-)J. At-plant application of aldicarb (0.336 g a.i./M row in a 20-cm-wide band) to monoculture peanut [P(+ )] resulted in an average 23.0% yield increase. When aldicarb was applied to peanut following one year of hairy indigo, yield increased by 43.0% compared to P(-). Peanut yield following two years of hairy indigo [l-1-P] was 35.8% higher than that from P(-). Aldicarb applied to peanut in the 1-1-P rotation increased yield by 56.1% relative to P(-) and by 22.7% compared with P(+) yield. Peanut yields obtained with the 1-1-P system were equivalent to those from peanut following one year of hairy indigo preceded by one year of 'Kirby' soybean (Glycine max) [Soybean-1-PJ or peanut following 'DPL 90' cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) preceded by one year of hairy indigo [l-Cotton-P).

Implications of Peanut Seed Infection with Sclerotinia minor on the Epidemiology of Sclerotinia Blight. H. A. MELOUK·, K. E. JACKSON and J. P. DAMICONE. USDA-ARS and Department of Plant Pathology, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK 74078- 9947. The incidence of ~. minor in 1, 218 commercial peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) seed lots harvested in 1988, 1989 and 1990 was determined by an agar plate assay. Seed samples were obtained from seed laboratories of the Oklahoma Department of Agriculture (Oklahoma City, OK) and the Oklahoma Crop Improvement Association (Stillwater, OK). Samples consisted of either non-treated seeds or seeds that had been commercially treated with registered fungicides. Isolations were made generally from 250 seeds per sample, and recovery of ~. minor from one seed constituted an infected seed lot. Only JO of the 1,218 seed lots assayed were infected and incidence of ~. minor in these infected lots ranged from 0.4-0.8%. If seed with a o. 5% incidence of .§.. l!1.inm: were planted at a density of 170, 000 seeds/ha, it would result in the introduction of 850 infected seeds/ha. Based on a 25% transmission efficiency, as determined in the greenhouse under optimal conditions for the development of sclerotinia blight, infection of at least 212 plants/ha would occur. Seed protectants that reduce the incidence of .§.. minor in seeds would decrease potential seed transmission of sclerotinia blight in developing peanut plants to a level proportional to their efficacy.

41 Modification of Canopy Microclimate by Pruning to Control Sclerotinia Blight of Peanut. P. D. BRUNE 0 and J. E. BAILEY, Department of Plant Pathology, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695. Pruning was investigated as a means of altering canopy microclimate to control sclerotinia blight (Sclerotinia ~) of peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.). Each plot consisted of four rows 15.2Sm long of cultivar NC 7 with row spacing and seeding rate according to currently recommended cultural practices. In 1990 treatments included the fungicide iprodione; pruning tops, sides, or tops and sides of plants either in July or August; and neither pruning nor fungicide. In 1991 the experiment was a 2x2x3 factorial. The 12 treatments were combinations of pruning tops of plants or no pruning; cupric hydroxide or chlorothalonil to control leafspots; and iprodione or fluazinam to control sclerotinia blight. Pruning was achieved with a string weed trimmer. Disease assessments were made by recording the presence or absence of limb lesions with actively growing.§...:.. minor mycelium, on stems in 30.Scm sections of each of the two center rows, in both 1990 and 1991. Data from 1990 showed pruning tops, or tops and sides in July was not different from the iprodione treatment, and was significantly better than unpruned plots without fungicide for both disease control and yield. Other pruning treatments were less desirable. In 1991, pruned had less disease than unpruned plots when no fungicides were applied to either, but yields _were not significantly different. Fungicide treatments on pruned plants resulted in lower disease and higher yield than chemical control on nonpruned pla~ts. It was concluded that pruning peanut canopies to alter microclimate may prove useful in helping to reduce disease and increase yield when s. minor is a problem.

Development of Strategieo for Integrated Management of Sclerotinia Blight of Peanut in Oklahoma. K. E. JACKSON*, H. A. MELOUK, J. P. DAMICONE, and J. R. SHOLAR. Dept. Of Plant Pathology, USDA-ARS, and Dept. of Agronomy, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK 74078-9947. Disea~e management strategies for Sclerotinia blight of peanut (.lll:A£.b1..il ~ L.) cauoed by Sclerotinia minor were developed based on cultivars planted, time of harveot, and chemical inputs. Data were collected from replicated field ploto over an eight year period at Ft. Cobb and Perkins, OK. The Spanish cultivar, Spanco, had 43\ higher pod yields and 66\ lower disease incidence than the runner cultivar, Okrun. Due to the low incidence of Sclerotinia on Spanco, the value of the average pod yield increase of 332 kg/ha in iprodione treated plots did not exceed fungicide and application costs. However, the value of the average pod yield increase of 865 kg/ha in iprodione treated plots of Okrun exceeded fungicide and application costs. Pod yield of the Sclerotinia blight resistant Spanish cultivar, Tamspan 90, was 3371 kg/ha in the untreated plots compared to the average yield of 3148 kg/ha from plots of Florunner treated with iprodione. Harvest date studies revealed that incidence of Sclerotinia blight increased and yieldo decreased on Okrun 135 days after planting, therefore, the early harvest date had the highest yield. Yields of Spanco were also highest at 135 days after planting, near the normal maturity date for this cultivar in Oklahoma. These results warrant the following management strategies for control of Sclerotinia blight: l) plant Tamspan 90 or Spanco peanut in fields with a history of severe Sclerotinia blight; 2) harvest Spanish peanuts near or at normal maturity; 3) apply iprodione on runner type peanut where Sclerotinia blight is a problem; and 4) harveot runner cultivars early when incidence of Sclerotinia blight is high.

42 Weather Monitoring Device for the Development and Deployment of Disease Advisory Models. J.E. BAILEY. Department of Plant Pathology, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7616. A significant amount of research is being conducted across the peanut production region on timing fungicide sprays according to weather-based predictive models. Commercialization of these models is gaining in popularity due in part to the efforts of Neogen Corporation (Lansing, MI) which has developed the Envirocaster, a weather data collection and analysis system. A significant need exists, however, for an inexpensive research and development device which will allow easy exchange of computer code as well as a common method of data collection. Research at North Carolina State University has lead to the development of a personal computer-based system which monitors a solid state weather station. Parameters measured are; air and soil temperature, dew point (convertible to relative humidity), and rainfall. Software is written in "C" language. Weather data is logged into a floppy disk text file. The system in designed so that each researcher, using commonly available college student programmers, can create or modify a weather-based model. Advantages of this system are; a) a commonly used data exchange and programming code format, b) ease of uploading developed programs to EPROM chip (i.e. Envirocaster) format, c) low cost, and d) large screen to aid in communicating model results. Suitability of this device for on-farm and extension use is currently being evaluated.

On-Farm Evaluation of Folicur 3.6F for Peanut Pisease Control. J. W. BELL*, K. A. NOEGEL, and R. D. RUDOLPH, Hiles Inc., Kansas City, MO 64120. In 1991, nine peanut (~ ~ L.) grower locations with a history of foliar and soilborne disease problems were selected for on-farm evaluations of Folicur 3.6F fungicide. Except for Folicur applications, all cultural practices were performed by the growers and were identical to the producer's commercial production. Fol icur was applied at 3.6 oz a. i ./A with surfactant at fungicide applications 3-6 or 4 and 5 with Bravo being applied at all other application dates in the seven-application spray schedule. Both Folicur spray schedules provided Cercosoorjd1 ym persona tum, Scl erotium rolfsi i, and Rhizoctonja solani control. However, the four-application schedule provided more consistent disease control with twice the yield increase. Two Fol icur applications increased yield 550 lb/A over Bravo while four applications increased yield 1200 lb/A. In addition, the two-application schedule increased % SMK+SS by one percentage point, while the four-application schedule provided a two percentage point increase. The potential for soilborne disease control, yield increase, and grade improvement make Folicu~ a valuable addition to peanut pest control products.

43 Effects of Irrigation on Yield and Rbhoctonia Limb Rot in Soutbern Runner Peanut at Iwo Harvest Dates. T. B. BRENNEMAN, Dept. of Plant Pathology, Coastal Plain Experiment Station, Tifton, GA 31793. Southern Runner peanut was planted in blocks 40 ft long by eight beds (48 feet) wide in a field of Tifton loamy sand (pH 5. 9) with solid set sprinkler irrigation. A split-split-plot design with five replications was used where main plots were either nonirrigated or received 0.75 in of supplemental water twice each week unless they received the equivalent in rainfall. Subplots consisted of Koncut SOW treatments applied to single beds at 0, 1. 0 and 2. 0 lb/A at 60 and 90 days after planting (DAP). Sub-subplots were defined by digging dates with an initial harvest at about 140 DAP and a second harvest two to three weeks later. All plots received a narrow band application of PCNB-Kocap (SO lb/A) at pegging. In 1990, it was extremely hot and dry, and irrigation increased the incidence of white mold (Sclerotiwp .I2l.f!ii) at the late harvest and more than doubled the severity of rhizoctonia limb rot (Rbizoctonia .!!9.l.1!ni AG-4). The effects of drought stress were so severe that irrigation increased pod yields by 2334 and 1S63 lb/A, respectively, for the early and late harvests. There was a significant negative correlation between limb rot severity and pod yield only in the irrigated plots. Honcut treatments had little effect on disease levels or pod yields. In 1991, it was extremely wet early but dry late in the season. Irrigation only increased yields by 384 and 332 lb/A, respectively, for the early and late harvests and had very little affect on disease incidence. Koncut treatments reduced disease severity and increased yields. There was a significant (P < 0.02) correlation between limb rot severity, and the percent damaged kernels at both harvests but a significant (P < 0.03) negative correlation with yield only at the early harvest. Kean pod yields were all greater than 4400 lb/A although limb rot severity was approximately SOX in nontreated plots. Overall, Southern Runner appears to tolerate moderate to high levels of limb rot and still produce excellent yields if supplied adequate water.

Effectivene5.5 Of Four New Experimental Fungicides For Control Of Southern Blight On Peanut In Texas T. A LEE, JR.•, Texas Agricultural Extension Service, Texas A & M University System, Stephenville, Texas 76401 Two field studies conducted in 1991 compared four new experimental fungicides (Fluazinam - (ISK Biotech}, Folicur - (Mobay}, Moncut - (Nor Am}, Mon 24017 - (Monsanto}] to Terraclor lOG (Uniroyal} for control of Southern blight caused by Sclerotiumil!!Wi . .S.lQlWi, even with the best currently labeled controls, continues to destroy 3-6% of the Texas peanut (Ammis ~ L} crop each year. These four experimental chemicals were sprayed from 1-3 times during the growing season through a compressed air sprayer in 179.39 L/ha. Plots 30.5 m X 2 rows spaced 0.91 m apart were arranged in a randomized block design on naturally infested sites on grower farms. Mon 24017 was evaluated at rates ranging from 0.14 to 0.56 kg a.i./ha. Folicur was evaluated at 0.25 kg a.i./ha. Moncut was evaluated at 1.12 kg a.i./ha. Fluazinam was evaluated at 0.14 to 1.12 kg a.i./ha. Untreated check plots averaged 20 infection sites. Mon 24017 treatments averaged 3.83 infection sites. Fluaziman treatments averaged 9.16 sites. Moncut treated plots averaged 7.61 sites. Folicur treated plots averaged 4.67 sites. Terraclor treated plots averaged 15.67 sites. All fungicides had fewer infection sites than the untreated check plots. All four experimental fungicides had less infection than the Terrac!or lOG standard with Mon 24017 displaying the fewest infection sites.

44 Disease Control and Yield Response of Peanut treated with Moncut as Influenced by Crop Rotation. A. K. HAGAN*, K. L. BOWEN, and J. R. WEEKS. Auburn University, AL 36849-5624. A full canopy spray of Moncut SOW at 1.1 kg a.i./ha was made 60 days after planting to Florunner peanuts (~ ~ L.) in 16 different commercial fields with one of the following cropping sequences: continuous peanuts (poor), peanuts after 1 yr of corn (average), 2 or 3 yrs of corn and/or cotton before peanuts (good), peanuts after bahiagrass (5 yrs min.) (best). Irrigated fields were included in all but the best rotation category. Plots were two 15.2 m rows spaced 0.9 m apart and were randomized in four or six complete blocks. Stem and limb rot damage was assessed within 2 days of digging and yields were adjusted to 10% moisture. Economic impact was determined by integrating field results with a cropping frequency database and 1991 crop value inputs. Stem rot severity was highest in fields in the average rotation category, followed by significantly less disease in the good and poor categories. Few stem rot loci were seen in fields in the best category. Severe limb rot damage was noted in two fields, one each in the best and good rotation categories. Largest yield gains (23%) were seen in the average category fields treated with Moncut. Yield gains were found in fields in the good (14%) and poor (6%) rotation catagories. Overall, stem rot severity was reduced 80% and yield increased 18% by Moncut. Based on these results, nearly 63,000 tons of peanuts with a gross value of almost 38 million dollars ($0.30/ lb) would have been gained had Moncut been used on Alabama's 1991 peanut acreage.

Survival of Rhi?.vct.onia solani AG-/1 in Residual Peanut Shells in Soil. R. F.. BAIRD), D. K. BHLV'· B. G. HULl.INIX, JR. 2 and A. K. CULBREATH2, Southwest Purdue Agricultural Program, Vincemms, IN '•7591 1; and Dept. of Plant Pathology, University of Georgia, Coastal Plain Experiment Station, Tifton, GA 31793-07482 Rhizoctonia ~ AG-/• (RS), a major pathogen of agricultural crops, may overwinter as a saprophyte in dead plant material in soil. We attempted to determine the practical longevity of RS in residual peanut shells from pods buried in field microplots. Mature pods were surface sterilized with propylene oxide and colonized by RS (=treated). A second group of pods were left untreated. Pods from each group were placed into fiberglass mesh bags and buried in Tifton loamy sand at 0, 7 .5 and 25.5 cm depths. Every 6 months for 2 years treated and untreated pods were lifted, surface dis infested and 50 half- or quarter-shells/replicate plated on tannic acid-benomyl aga1· for semi-selective recovery of RS. After 6 months, RS was isolated from 113% (0 depth), 11.5% (7.5 cm) and 15% (25.5 cm) of treated shells and 7%, <1% and 0%, respectively, from untreated shells. Trichoderma spp. isolations increased with depth. After 12 months, isolations of RS were still greatest from shells at 0 cm. Also, more RS cultures werP obtained from treated than untreated shells. lsoJations of Trichoderma increased and Fusarium spp. also were recovered. After 18 months, RS was isolated most frequently from shells buried 25.5 cm: 18% of treated and 15% of untreated shells. Trichoderma isolations were lower from shells at 25.5 than 0 and 7.5 cm and Fusarium isolations increased from all depths. After 24 months, RS was isolated from 3.5% of both treated and untreated shells. Fusar1um was the most common fungus isolated and Trichoderma, though often recovered, was isolated less than at 12 months. RS cultures were recovered from the shells observed to be in various slates of decay. We hypothesize that nutrient (cellulose) depletion with subsequent loss of shell integrity and competition or antagonism from other colonizing fungi ultimately reduced survival of the pathogen. Deep burial of RS containing plant debris initially depleted inoculum of the pathogen faster than shallow or no burial, but the fungus lived 2 years in debris at all depths. We suspect that the remaining level of inoculum would be problematical with susceptible hosts.

45 WEED SCIENCE

Pursuit Tank Mixtures for Weed Control in Georgia Peanuts. S. JONES*, J. w. WILCUT, J. s. RICHBURG, III, and G. WILEY. Dep. of Agronomy, Coastal Plain Experiment Station, Univ. of Georgia, Tifton, GA 31793-0748, and American Cyanamid Corp., Tifton, GA 31794. Field studies were conducted in 1990 and 1991 at seven locations in Georgia to evaluate Pursuit and various Pursuit tank mixtures for weed control and peanut tolerance and yield. Treatments evaluated included cracking (GC) treatments of Pursuit applied at 0.063 lb ai/ac, Pursuit plus Basagran at 0.25 lb/ac, Pursuit plus Starfire at 0.125 lb/ac, and Basagran at 0.25 lb/ac plus Starfire for comparative purposes. All plots except the weedy check received an application of Prowl at 1.0 lb/ac preplant incorporated. Weed species in the test areas included purple nutsedge (~ rotundus CYPRO), yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus CYPES), sicklepod (~ obtusifolia CASOB), coffee senna (Cassia occidentalis CASOC), bristly starbur (Acanthospermum hispidum ACNHI), Florida beggarweed (Desmodium tortuosum DEDTO), smallflower morningglory (Jacguernontia tarnnifolia IAQTA), Ipomoea morningglory species IPOZZ), common cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium XANST), and prickly sida (Sida ~ SIDSP) • Pursuit provided at least 90% control of IAQTA, IPOZZ, XANST, SIDSP, CYPRO, CASOC, ACNHI, 85% control of CYPES, 12% control of DEDTO, and 16% CASOB control. Adding Basagran to Pursuit did not influence control of any species. Adding Starfire to Pursuit improved DEDTO control to 69% and CASOB control to 75%. Basagran plus Starfire provided less late-season control of all species except DEDTO and CASOB when compared to Pursuit GC. There were no statistical differences in peanut yield with the GC applications. Pursuit plus Starfire yielded 3,630 lb/ac, Basagran plus Starfire yielded 3,380 lb/ac, Pursuit plus Basagran yielded 3,120 lb/ac, while Prowl alone yielded 1,840 lb/ac.

Pursuit and Cadre Mixtures for Weed Control in Georgia Peanuts. J. W. WILCUT* AND J. S. RICHBURG, III. Pep. of Agronomy, Coastal Plain Experiment station, Univ. of Georgia, Tifton, GA 31793-0748. Field studies were initiated in 1991 at two locations to investigate Pursuit and Cadre applied alone and in various mixtures for weed control, peanut tolerance and yield. Pursuit and Cadre were each applied alone at 0.016, 0.032, 0.048, and 0.063 lb ai/ac. A replacement series was utilized to evaluate different mixtures of Pursuit and Cadre. All possible mixtures of Pursuit and Cadre were evaluated where a grand total of no more than 0.063, 0.048, and 0.032 lb ai/ac of Pursuit and Cadre we~e applied together. The Pursuit, Cadre, and mixture combination treatments were applied approximately two weeks after cracking. For comparative purposes, a standard of Basagran at o. 25 lb/ac plus Starfire at O.125 lb/ac at cracking followed two weeks later by Basagran at 0.5 lb/ac plus Starfire at 0.125 lb/ac plus Butyrac at 0.25 lb/ac was used along with a weedy and weed-free check. Sonalan at o. 75 lb ai/ac was applied preplant incorporated to all plots except the weedy check. A nonionic surfactant at 0.25% (v/v) was applied with all Basagran plus starfire, Pursuit, Cadre, and Pursuit plus Cadre mixtures. Weed species in the test area included bristly starbur (Acanthospermum hispidurn ACNHI), sicklepod (Cassia obtusifolia CASOB), Florida beggarweed (Desmodium tortuosum DEDTO), smallflower morningglory (Jacguernontia tamnifolia IAQTA), and coffee senna (~ occidentalis CASOC). All POST treatments provided >95% control of IAQTA. Cadre provided better control of all other broadleaf weeds than Pursuit at comparable rates. There was no benefit to mixing Pursuit with Cadre but Cadre mixtures with Pursuit provided better control than Pursuit alone. Cadre must be applied at 0.032 lb/ac to provide >90% control of CASOC, and 0.064 lb/ac for >90% control of ACNHI, DEDTO, and CASOB. Yields equivalent to the standard and the weed-free check required at least 0.032 lb/ac of Cadre. No Pursuit only treatment provided yields equivalent to the weed-free check or the standard.

46 Cadre Svstems for Weed Control in Georgia and North Carolina Peanuts. T. L. GREY*, J. W. WILCUT, G. R. WEHTJE, f. R. WALLS, JR., and G. WILEY. Dep. of Agronomy and Soils, Auburn Univ., AL 36849, Dep. of Agronomy, Coastal Plain Experiment Station, Univ. of Georgia, Tifton, GA 31793-0748, and American Cyanamid Corp., Goldsboro, NC 27530 and Tifton, GA 31794. field studies were conducted in 1990 and 1991 at six locations in Georgia and one location in North Carolina in 1991 to evaluate Cadre, Cadre tank mixtures, and Cadre systems for weed control, peanut tolerance and yield. Treatments evaluated included cracking (GC) treatments of Cadre applied at 0.063 lb ai/ac, Cadre plus Basagran at 0.25 lb/ac, and Basagran at 0.25 lb/ac plus Starfire at 0.125 lb/ac for comparative purposes. Several systems then received POST treatments at 3 weeks after GC (3WGC) that included Cadre at 0.063 lb/ac plus Butyrac at 0.25 lb/ac, Cadre plus Basagran at 0.5 lb/ac plus Butyrac, or Cadre alone at 0.063 lb/ac. All plots except the weedy check received an application of Prowl at 1.0 lb/ac preplant incorporated. Weed species in the test areas included purple nutsedge (Cyoerus rotundus CYPRO), yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus CYPES), sicklepod (Cassia obtusifolia CASOB), coffee senna (Cassia occidentalis CASOC), bristly starbur (Acanthospermum hispidum • ACNHI), Florida beggarweed (Desmodium tortuosum DEDTO), smallflower morningglory (Jacguemontia tamnifol ia IAQTA), Jpomoea morningglory species IPOZZ), common cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium XANST), citronmelon (Citrullus 1anatus var. citroides CITLC) ,and prickly sida (Sida spinosa SIDSP). Cadre provided >90% control of CITLC, IAQTA, IPOZZ, XANST, DATST, SIDSP, CYPRO, CASOC, and CYPES as single application at GC. Control of these species generally was not improved with a second application. Cadre generally provided >90% control of DEDTO, ACNHI, and CASOB. However, in some locations, control of these species was improved with a 3WGC application. Cadre provided at least equivalent control to the commercial standard of Starfire plus Basagran sequential s and frequently better contro 1 . 'fl orunner' and 'Southern Runner' peanuts exhibited excellent tolerance to Cadre even at two 0.063 lb/ac applications. Injury was slightly higher with two applications. In one location, Basagran reduced Cadre control of DEDTO. Wheat, oats, triticale, and rye showed no effect to Cadre at 0.063 lb/ac or 0.063 plus 0.063 lb/ac when planted in rotation the fall following Cadre application.

Influence of Pursuit and Cadre on Nutsedge Development. D.T. GOODEN* and M.B. WIXSON. Clemson University, Pee Dee Research and Education Center, Florence, SC 29501 and American Cyanamid Company, Columbia, SC 29212. An experiment was coordinated in 1991 at the Pee Dee Research and Education Center, Florence, S. C. , to evaluate the influence of Pursuit and Cadre on nutsedge in peanuts. The study had a field phase where the two herbicides were evaluated by several methods of application for efficacy on nutsedge, crop injury and yield of the crop. A second phase involved digging nutsedge tubers from the plots to determine tuber numbers, weight, species present and germination in the greenhouse. Both field and greenhouse comparisons of Pursuit and Cadre were made with a standard nutsedge material and with a weedy check. Results found all Cadre treatments and Pursuit applied either PPI or at cracking to be excellent for season-long control of nutsedge, while Vernam offered only 3-4 weeks of control. Yields of peanuts, nutsedge tuber weights and tuber counts, as well as germination of tubers, followed herbicide efficacy very closely. It appears that Pursuit and Cadre inhibit germination of surviving tubers, as compared to the standard. The greenhouse germination study involved only purple nutscdgc, as yellow did not germinate in the greenhouse.

47 Weed Control in Texas peanuts wjth Y-53482. W. J. GRICHAR• and P. S. BOYD- ROBERTSON. Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, Yoakum, TX 77995. Field studies were conducted at three locations in South and Central Texas during the 1991 growing season to evaluate V-53482 alone and in combination with pendimethalin, trifluralin, imazethapyr, lactofen, or 2,4-DB for weed control. V-53482 alone at 28.4 or 42.5 g/A applied preplant incorporated (PAW) or preemergence (PRE) failed to provide control of (less than 60%) Texas panicum (.Psn.i.9!m texanum) under less than ideal moisture conditions. Under irrigated conditions, Texas panicum control was greater than 85%. Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) control was 100% when V-53482 was used alone or in combination with pendimethalin, imazethapyr, lactofen, or 2,4-DB. Pitted morningglor.y (lpomoea ill!!nQg) control with V-53482 was greater than 85% when used alone. In combination with pendimethalin, control of pitted morningglory was greater than 90%. Ivyleaf morningglory (~ hederacea) control with V-53482 in combination with trifluralin was greater than 90%. Leafflower (phyllanthus urinaria) control with V-53482 was 100% while trifluralin alone only provided 28% control. Peanut stunting (15%) was noted at one location (Central Texas). Peanut yields with V-53482 were significantly higher than the untreated check and comparable with pendimethalin.

DPX PE350 CSTAPLEl and F6285 for Weed Control in Georgia Peanuts. J. s. RICHBURG, III* and J. w. WILCUT, Dep. of Agronomy, Coastal Plain Experiment station, Univ. of Georgia, Tifton, GA 31793-0748. Field studies were initiated in 1991 to evaluate Staple and F6285 for weed control, peanut tolerance and yield. Prowl was applied PPI at 1.0 lb ai/ac to all plots except the weedy check. Staple treatments included a factorial arrangemept of three rates at 0.04, 0.08, and 0.12 lb ai/ac and three application methods of PPI, PRE, and GC (at cracking). F6285 was applied PPI at 0.375 and 0.5 lb ai/ac. A commercial standard of Basagran at 0.25 lb/ac plus starfire at 0.125 lb/ac was applied at GC followed two weeks later by Basagran at 0.5 lb/ac plus Starfire at 0.125 lb/ac plus Butyrac at 0.25 lb/ac. All GC and POST treatments were applied with a nonionic surfactant at 0.25% (v/v). For comparative purposes one additional treatment consisted of Prowl PPI with no GC or POST treatment. Weed species included sicklepod (Cassia obtusifolia CASOB), coffee senna (~ occidentalis CASOC), smallflower morningglory (Jacquemontia tamnifolia IAQTA), and yellow nutsedge (CVperµs esculentus CYPES). Peanut phytotoxicity was approximately 30% with Staple at all application methods at 0.12 lb/ac and with Basagran plus Starfire sequentials, while phytotoxicity from F6285 was at least 60% three weeks after planting. F6285 provided complete control of CASOC, IAQTA, and CYPES and no control of CASOB. In an adjacent study, F6285 also provided complete control of purple nutsedge (cyperus rotundus CYPRO). Staple controlled CASOB at least 86% applied PPI and PRE at 0.12 lb/ac and 22% control as a GC application. CASOC control was >92% with all applications at 0.12 lb/ac. IAQTA control was at least 98% with all applications of Staple. All Staple treatments except 0.08 lb/ac GC provided yields equivalent to the commercial standard. F6285 treatments generally provided lower yields than the commercial standard.

48 Interactions of Classic Cchlorimuronl with other pesticide used in Peanuts. G. WEHTJE•and J. w. WILCUT. Assoc. Prof. Agronomy and Soils, Auburn University, Auburn AL 36849: and Assist. Prof. Agronomy, University of Georgia, Coastal Plain Experiment Station, Tifton GA 31793. The herbicide chlorimuron is used for late-season control of various weeds. The age-dependent tolerance of peanuts to chlorimuron is unique. As peanuts mature, chlorimuron foliar penetration decreases, and metabolism to benign forms increases. The interaction of chlorimuron with other pesticides and pesticide adjuvants that are commonly used in peanuts was evaluated in a series of laboratory, greenhouse and field experiments. The addition of 2,4-DB had no effect on the absowtion and translocation of 14c-chlorimuron; conversely, the addition of 1 C-2,4-DB and no effect on the absorption and translocation of 14c-2,4-DB. Both greenhouse and field studies revealed that tank mixtures of these two herbicides were additive with respect to weed control and no more injurious to peanuts than either herbicide applied alone. The addition of either naptalam or bentazon reduced 14C-chlorimuron absorption and translocation. This antagonism toward chlorimuron penetration was frequently reflected in increases crop tolerance. Weed control with these tank mixtures varied with the target species. The addition of some, but not all, adjuvants increased crop injury. The addition of the insecticide acephate (Orthene) had minimal effect on 14c-chlorimuron absorption and translocation.

FLAIR: A Potential New Cmcking-Time Peanut Herbicide. D.L. COLVIN* and W.C. JOHNSON III. Agronomy Dept., University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 36611-0500 and USDA-ARS. Coastal Plain Expt. Sta., Tifton, GA. Studies were conducted during 1991 at Auapulgus, Georgia, and Gainesville, Florida. to determine endothall formulation, time of application, and rates to be used for peanut weed control. Herbicide treatments used in these studies included Herbicide 273 (dipotassium salt of endothall). Hydrothol 191 (dimethylalkylamine salt of endothall), as well as a standard treatment of paraquat plus bentazon for comparisons. Rates of endothall were 0.6, I.I, 2.2 and 4.5 kg/ai/ha. All plots received pendimethalin at I.I kg/ha as a preplant-incorporated treatment Endothall and standards were applied at-cracking, two weeks after cracking (2WAC) and four weeks after cracking (4WAC)at Gainesville, with applications made 2WAC at Auapulgus. Sunrunner peanuts were planted in Gainesville and Florunner in Attapulgus. Spray applications were made with either a tractor-mounted boom or a backpack sprayer set to deliver 187 I/ha per acre utilizing flat fan tips. Data gathered included crop injury, weed control ratings, and yield. Crop injury from endothall treatments generally ranged from IO% to as high as 50% injury, according to time of application. Crop injury persisted early-season, but had dissipated by the late-season rating. As a general rule, Hydrothol 191 was a little more injurious to peanuts than Herbicide 273. With respect to weed control, Hydrothol 191 was more effective than Herbicide 273 at comparable rates. In most cases, sicklepod and Florida beggarweed required at least the 4.5 kg/ha rate of Herbicide 273 for adequate weed control. Conversely, rates of 0.6 to I.I kg of Hydrothol 191 gave very good control of both Florida beggarweed and sicklepod. Yields correlated with weed control data. Rates of at least 2.2 to 4.5 kg of Herbicide 273 provided yields equivalent to the standard of paraquat plus bentazon. while rates of0.6 to 1.1 kg/ha of Hydrothol 191 were equivalent to the standard. Results from studies conducted during 1991 showed that Hydrothol 191 was a more efficacious treatment than Herbicide 273, while the optimum rate tested was between 0.6 to I.I kg/ha for Hydrothol 191. The optimum application window for weed control at the Gainesville location was 2WAC. Hydrothol 191 provided equal control to the standard of paraquat plus beruazon on sicklepod, Florida beggarweed and bristly starbur. Yields were equal to the s1andard under weedy and weedfree conditions when at least I.I kg/ha of Hydrothol 191 was used.

49 Effects of Endothall Formulation, Rate, and Time of Application on Peanut. Y. C.. JOHNSON, Ill* and D. L. COLVIN. USDA-ARS, Coastal Plain Experiment Station, Tifton, GA 31793; Department of Agronomy, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 326ll. Studies were conducted in 1991 at Tifton, GA to measure the effects of endothall on peanut growth and yield in a weed free system. Two formulations of endothall were evaluated; dlpotassium salt sold as "Herbicide 273" (currently registered for use on sugar beets) and a dlmethylalkylamlne salt sold as "Hydrothol 19l"(currently registered for use ln aquatics). Four rates of each formulation were evaluated; 0.6, 1.1, 2.2, and 4.5 kg al ha·1. Bentazon (0.6 kg al ha·1) plus paraquat (0.15 kg ai ha"1) was used as a standard. All treatments were applied at VE, VE plus 2 wk, and VE plus 4 wk. Parameters evaluated were stand count, canopy width, biomass, pod biomass, and yield. Generally, Herbicide 273 was less injurious than Hydrothol 191 at equivalent rates and times of application. Hydrothol 191 at rates up to 1.1 kg ha·1 was no more phytotoxic than bentazon plus paraquat. The highest rate of Herbicide 273 and Hydrothol 191 applied VE plus 4 wk reduced peanut biomass, pod biomass, and yield. Given the previously reported data that Hydrothol 191 ls more efficacious than Herbicide 273, it appears that Hydrothol 191 can safely be applied to peanut at VE through VE plus 4 wk at rates of 0.6 through 1.1 kg ha·1. Within these limits, the level of phytotoxlclty is similar to that from bentazon plus paraquat.

Interactions of Butyrac with Postemeraence Graminicides. A. C. YORK*, J. w. WILCUT AND w. J. GRICHAR. Crop Science Dep., North Carolina state Univ., Raleigh, NC 27695-7620, Dep. of Agronomy, Coastal Plain Experiment Station, Univ. of Georgia, Tifton, GA 31793-0748, and Agric. Station, P.O. Box 755, Texas A&M Univ., Yoakum, TX 77995. Field studies were initiated in 1991 at four locations in North Carolina, two locations in Georgia, and one location in Texas. These experiments investigated the interactions of Butyrac with four graminicides (Assure II, Fusilade 2000, Poast Plus, and Select) as tank mixtures and in sequential applications. Butyrac was applied at 0.25 lb ai/ac, Assure II at 0.05 lb/ac, Fusilade and Poast Plus at 0.188 lb/ac, and Select at 0.1 lb/ac. The first five treatments consisted of each herbicide alone; treatments 6-9 consisted of the graminicides applied in mixture with eutyrac; treatments 10-13 consisted of Butyrac applied alone followed by (fb) each respective graminicide applied 24 h later; treatments 14-17 consisted of the graminicide applications fb Butyrac 24 h later, and treatment 18 consisted of the untreated check. All graminicides and graminicide tank mixtures with Butyrac were applied with a crop oil concentrate at 1.25% (v/v) of the spray volume. Grass species treated included Texas panicum (Panicum ~ PANTE), large crabgrass (Oigitaria sanquinalis DIGSA) , broadleaf signalgrass (Brachiaria platyphylla BRAPP), goosegrass (Eleusine .i..mli.rul ELEIN), field sandbur (Cenchrµs incertus CCHIN), and johnsongrass (~ halepense SORHA). No interactions were observed with Butyrac and graminicides on CCHIN, DIGSA, ELEIN, and BRAPP in North Carolina. PANTE control was reduced when Assure II was tank mixed with Butyrac in Texas. No interactions were observed in Georgia for PANTE or SORHA control. Efficacy with the graminicides varied among the different grass species.

50 Modeling Peanut Yield Losses Due to Weeds. J.C. BARBOUR* and D.C. BRIDGES. University of Georgia, Griffin, GA. A useable yield loss model would permit simulation of multiple densities for a given weed species and the identification of critical densities for fitting a yield response curve. These critical densities could then be studied in the field, and if the model predictions are validated, the yield response curve could be used to establish economic thresholds. The objective of this research was to develop a submode! of light competition between broadleaf weeds and peanuts to run with the PNUTGRO model. PNUTGRO is a physiologically based model of peanut growth and development. It incorporates genetic and environmental information into a highly mechanistic model. Light is a key input into PNUTGRO and is the primary resource competed for by weeds in peanut production. Nursery plots were established at Griffin in 1989, 1990, and 1991 to measure the canopy development and light interception characteristics of three broadleaf weeds. The species chosen, sicklepod (Cassia obtusifo/ia), Florida beggarweed (Desmodium tortuosum), and wild poinsettia (Euphorbia heterophylla), are three of the most troublesome weeds in Georgia peanut production. Individual plants were grown from seed planted next to the peanut furrow on the day of peanut planting. Periodic measurements were made of canopy height and width, leaf area, shoot dry matter, and light attenuation on weeds and crop at 30 cm increments from the weed. These data were used to develop light attenuation profiles for the weeds. Maximum PAR attenuation values for Florida beggarweed, sicklepod, and wild poinsettia were 44%, 38%, and 33%, respectively. Sicklepod and wild poinsettia emerged above the peanut canopy about 35 OAP, and Florida beggarweed topped the peanuts at about 40 days. The row length over which peanut yield was influenced was 172 cm for beggarweed, 158 cm for sicklepod, and 204 cm for wild poinsettia.

51 ECONOMIC FORCES IMPACTING THE U.S. PEANUT INDUSTRY SYMPOSIUM

US and World Peanut Market Analysjs. S.M. FLETCHER,* P. ZHANG and D.H. CARLEY. Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, University of Georgia, Griffin, GA 30223-1797. Peanuts are one of the principal oilseeds in the world. Even though peanuts has experienced significant production growth in the 1980s over the 1970s, rapeseed (canola) has surpassed it in terms of world production in the early 1990s. Furthermore, sunflower seed is close behind. This change in world ranking may be attributable to the emergence of health concerns in the industrial countries. Since the mid 1970s, edible peanuts has increased in importance in both domestic consumption and export trade. The export market has become more concentrated in the 1980s while the import market is less concentrated. While world harvested area changed very little from the 1970s to the 1980s, there was definite regional and subregional shifts. Asia, and in particular, China increased their share significantly, while Africa's share decreased. A similar picture was seen for yield. Asia and China had the largest yield increases while Africa's yield declined from the 1970s to the 1980s. Two key factors exist that may change the peanut environment in the 1990s and beyond. One of the factors is •aflatoxin. • This factor is a key item in the edible trade as well as the domestic market. USA, EC and other developed countries are lowering the limits allowed for atlatoxin in the edibles. USA does the best given their peanut usually command a $100/MT premium in the export market. Atlatoxin is a key problem for the African countries if they desire to enter the edible trade market on a large scale. The second factor deals with GA TI and individual country's domestic policy. If a GATI agreement is reached, trading and production patterns could change for the 1990s and beyond. In conclusion, the world peanut market is not static. It is a dynamic, ever changing environment.

U S Peanut Policy and Trade Issues - Impact on Peanut fanners. D.H. CARLEY* and S.M. FLETCHER. Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, University of Georgia, Griffin, GA 30223-1797. Several U.S. peanut policy and international trade issues may have substantial production, marketing, and income impacts on U.S. peanut farmers. Possible policy and trade scenarios for the remainder of the 1990s are 1) continuation of the current program, 2) a phasing out of the price support and quota program beginning in 1996, 3) GATI agreements become operational in 1993, and 4) food safety and labeling issues decrease demand for peanut products. Under program continuation, gross income to peanut farmers was estimated to increase 16% from 1993 to 1998 and estimated net income will increase over 5%. IfGATI measures are adopted by 1993, gross income to peanut farmers will stabilize at $1. l bil, about $200 mil less than current program income in 1993, and $400 mil less by 1998. Total gross income under GATI is estimated to be $1.7 bil less than under current programs in the 1993 to 1998 period. Net returns may become negative by 1997 under GATI. A phasing out of the current program beginning in 1996 with a support price adjustment to $660 mt from $772 mt, and then decreasing 10% annually, could result in a negative net income by 1998. A decrease in consumer demand for peanut products of 10%, as a result of the negative impact of food labeling regulations and food safety issues concerning atlatoxin and a reduction in exports by one-third, would decrease gross income to peanut farmers by almost $900 mil from 1994 to 1998. The overall effect of decreasing income to peanut farmers would impact on local communities in decreased farm income, rental income and land values, a reduction in the local tax base, changes in locations of peanut production, changes in farm supply and peanut buying businesses, and fewer peanut farmers. Production technology would need to be viewed differently, new marketing methods would need to be considered, and added emphasis would be needed on quality. The short-term adjustment to lower incomes will be painful, but in the longer-term the U.S. peanut industry will survive and maintain its competitiveness.

52 Regional Peanut Production Costs. Production History. and Market Structure: Profitability and Advantage. MARSHALL C. LAMB, W. DON SHURLEY*, FOY D. HILLS, JR., and A. BI.AXE BROWN. USDA, ARS, National Peanut Research Laboratory, 1011 Forrester Drive, S. E., Dawson, GA 31742; Dept. of Agricultural and Applied Economics, University of Georgia, P. o. Box 1209, Tifton, GA 31793; Dept. of Agriculture and Environment, Abilene Christian University, Abilene, TX 7699; and Dept. of Agricultural and Resource Economics, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695. A CATT agreement or possible future change in the U.S. peanut program could lower price supports and change or eliminate the peanut production quota system. Currently, quota peanut production is limited to those farms having quota. Changes in the program to eliminate a quota structure could cause some realignment of peanut production. Peanut production could reallocate among farms depending on production costs and comparative economic advantage. Factors important in comparative advantage include costs, yields, and alternative enterprise opportunity costs. The Southwest has a history of underproduction. Recent modifications in the 1990 Farm Bill, however, allow quota in Texas to be transferred across county lines from underproduction areas to other areas. Yields, on average, in the Southwest tend to be less variable due to geographic distances between peanut growing areas. The Southeast generally accounts for the majority of production over quota or additionals. Peanut yields in the Southeast have been highly variable in recent years and have trended downward. The Southeast must improve yields to maintain its competitive edge and lower cost per ton. USDA cost of production data for years 1987-89 were calculated and compared by rE19ion. As a region, the Southeast has the lowest production cost per ton. Because the USDA data averages all peanut types and production practices, peanut enterprise budget data were collected from states in each of the 3 peanut regions. An analysis of this data indicated some locations in the Southwest were competitive with the Southeast. Based on USDA costs, Returns to Land and Management by region were compared at various peanut prices. Break-even peanut prices were calculated that would equate net returns form other enterprises. Although farm income would decline, peanuts would likely continue to be the most profitable crop for many Southeastern farmers but with fewer farmers.

Fµture Issues and Potential Changes in Domestic Peanut Policy. J.D. SCHAUB. USDA, Economic Analysis Staff, Washington DC 20250. The 1985 and 1990 farm bills evolved against a background of public concern over increasing farm financial stress, rising program costs, increasing crop surpluses, weakening export competitiveness, and protecting the environment. These same concerns will shape future agricultural policy. Substantial CCC losses are projected for the 1991 crop. Policy attention is likely to focus on those parts of the peanut program that create budget exposure. An agreement in the Uruguay Round of GATT negotiations will have significant effects on the u.s. peanut industry. A GATT agreement would replace import quotas with tariff equivalents and establish minimum market access levels. Tariffs would be phased down but not to zero. Aggregate Measure of Support (AMS) which has decreased since 1985 for most program crops would have to be reduced for peanuts.

53 A Manufacturer's Perspective on GAT'l'. c. c. BARNETT. ALGOOD FOOD COMPANY, LOUISVILLE, KY 40217.

A successful conclusion of the current round of GAT'l' negotiations will present the peanut product manufacturing sector with a number of changes and challenges. Under the current program, the support price and import quotas establish many of the perimeters which manufacturers use in purchasing policies. Agreement in the GAT'l' negotiations could produce a range of scenarios which change the envirorunent for the manufacturing sector. One extreme is total elimination of the current peanut program and all import restrictions. A more modest shift would result in some alterations in the current program, but preserve the existing framework. Major changes would occur if either unlimited or very large quantities of imported shelled goods are allowed into the U.S. It is assumed that major manufacturers would not make rapid changes in peanut supplies without assurance that their finished product would continue to be acceptable to the consumer. If finished products can be made so that the consumer sees no perceptible difference in the finished product regardless of the origin of peanuts used, then price becomes the dominant issue in most manufacturers buying decisions. Faced with large quantities of imported shelled goods into the United States we have a requirement for a quality system similar to that which the PAC currently provides for domestic shelled goods. Even with such a system in place, there is concern that only the larger manufacturers would have adequate resources to carry out monitoring and testing to insure that quality levels met government regulations and expectations of the consumer. Smaller manufacturers would be exposed to significant risks if they did not have suitable internal testing and monitoring capabilities.

A Grower's Perspective on GATT. J. L. ADAMS*, Peanut Grower, 275 Industrial Boulevard, Camilla, GA 31730. The GATT negotiations are at a critical stage with the summit meeting in Europe. An agreement on GATT seems probable and if passed, it would be difficult to defeat its ratification in the u.s. Congress. However, European objections have slowed down the negotiations. The European common Agricultural Policy is costly, consuming over one-half of their domestic budget and totals, in direct cost, 40 to 60 billion dollars. Europe must curtail its spending on agriculture. The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) also poses a threat to the peanut program and especially Section 22. A NAFTA agreement may be imminent and possibly even more difficult to defeat than GATT. If the current peanut program is lost, profit from peanuts will accumulate in fewer hands and landowners and quota owners will suffer losses. Therefore, the entire peanut industry must work collectively to develop a GATT legal peanut program to insure a stronger and more stable industry.

54 FUNGICIDE RESISTANCE SYMPOSIUM

Fungicide Resistance in Peanut Production. T. B. BRENNEMAN* and A. K. CULBREATH, Dept. of Plant Pathology, Coastal Plain Experiment St:ation, Tifton, GA 31793. Peanut(~ hypogaea L.) is a high value crop that routinely receives large fungicide inputs since most currently grown cultivars have little disease resistance. This reliance on chemicals to produce a commodity of such importance to the southeastern U.S. makes fungicide resistance an issue of great concern. The benzimidazole fungicides were highly effective against peanut leafspot diseases (Cercosporidium personatum and Cercospora arachidicola) but became ineffective due to the rapid selection of resistant isolates. The continued availability of chlorothalonil ensured stable production, but a valuable

0 management tool was essentially lost. !n vitro resistance of Sclerotinia minor to the dicarboximide fungicides has also been documented in Virginia. Fortunately this appears to be a low-level resistance, and there have been no crov losses link~d to dicarboximide-resistant isolates of ~· minor. Considering tl.~ l.ea.y u5e ,;,f fun&lcides on pea.. ut, I.he cro.i> l1d.5 had relatively r ... w .,.-ot.li::ms from resistan::c. However, several excellent new iw1glcides are being evaluated ou peanut. ;;1th the demonstrated tend~ncy for some 11ew fungicide cla~ses to be mo1·~ vro11..? to .·esistance, it is imperative that we utilize the best use strategies to optimize the effective life of these compounds.

Peanut Disease Control Strategies Utilizing Sterol Biosynthesis Inhibitors in Texas. T. A. LEE, JR. , Texas Agricultural Ex tens ion Service, Texas A & M University System, Stephenville, TX 76401. After almost a decade of testing various sterol biosynthesis inhibitors (SI) on Texas peanuts, one must wonder if they will ever be labeled. Texas growers have even experienced two years (1989-1990) where the SI from Ciba-Geigy (Tilt) was legally used under a Section 18 label. The wealth of experience gained here indicates very erratic performance. This is thought to be either due to significant strain differences in peanut fungi or a rapidly developing tolerance. Under Texas conditions the soil organisms such as Sclerotium 1:S!.l.UU1 and Rhizoctonia .!i2.l.i!.ni appear to be the most likely targets for the SI materials. It would be desirable if the SI materials could be rotated with non-related materials. This should reduce the speed at which tolerance would develop. Non­ related materials that are legal for the soil diseases have to date performed so poorly that growers try to avoid them. The potential problem thus becomes magnified. With this in mind, it is believed that even if one or more of the SI's become available they will have a relatively short effective use pattern in Texas.

55 Integrating Ergosterol Biosynthcsis Inhjbjting Fungicides into Strategics for Peanut Disease Control in Virginia. P. M. PHIPPS•. Tidewater Agric. Exp. Sta., VPl&SU, Suffolk. VA 23437 Diniconazole, propiconazole, tcbuconazole, cyproconazole, and fenbuconazolc are ergosterol biosynthesis inhibiting (EBI) fungicides that have utility for control of early and late leafspot of peanut as well as certain soilborne diseases. Some of these chemicals are in the final stages of review for registration as peanut fungicides and may be approved for commercial use in the near future. Compared to chlorothalonil, the EBI fungicides would allow a 90% reduction in levels of active ingredient required for control of early leafspot. The replacement of just one spray of chlorothalonil with an EBI fungicide could reduce the tonnage of fungicide by 49 tons a.i. in the state of Virginia. Furthermore, applications of certain EBI fungicides for control of leafspot would offer suppression of Southern stem rot and Rhizoctonia limb rot; thereby replacing the need for applications of fungicides such as quintoz.ene (PCNB) and carboxin. An additional and highly desired effect, observed only with diniconazole, has been suppression of excessive vine growth. As a group, the EBI fungicides have important limitations which include the absence of activity against Sclerotinia blight, and limited efficacy for control of web blotch and pepper spot. Another highly debated question surrounding use of EBI fungicides has been the rfak for development of resistance in fungal populations. Strategies to minimiz.e the risk of resistance require strict adherence to practices for minimizing disease pressure and either tank mixes or alternating sprays of EBI fungicides with fungicides that have a different mode of action, such as chlorothalonil. Peanut growers in Virginia have widely adopted the Peanut Leafspot Advisory Program for reducing the number of fungicide sprays from six or seven on a 14-day schedule to an average of 3.5 per growing season. The program consistently results in increased disease pressure, but affords efficient control of disease at minimal cost and risk. Full-season use of an EBI fungicide according to the advisory program should be discouraged to reduce selection pressure for EBl-resistant populations of fungi. Routine use of chlorothalonil in the first and last sprays of a growing season would reduce selection pressure and the likelihood for seasonal carryover of resistance. Growers should also be reminded to stop using the advisory program and begin a 10- or 14-day schedule with chlorothalonil or fungicides other than EBrs whenever > 20% of leaflets show one or more spots before August 1 or >40% before September 1. EBI fungicides will probably find the best fit in Virginia when the second leafspot spray is made at pegging or soon thereafter. Application of an EBI fungicide at this time of spray would offer control of early leafspot and suppression of Southern stem rot and Rhizoctonia limb rot.

Application Strategies for Minimizing Resistance Build-up to Sterol Inhibitor Fungicides in Southeastern Peanuts. PAUL A. BACKMAN. Department of Plant Pathology, Alabama Agric. Exp. Stn. Auburn University, Auburn AL 36849. Resistance to DMI fungicides has developed in several diverse groups of pathogenic fungi. In some fungi the resistant forms are much less competitive than the wild type, and their populations decline quickly when the fungicide is not applied; in other cases they are much more competitive. Resistance has developed much more slowly in soil borne pathogens. Of particular concern has been the rapid development of resistance to triazole DHis such as seen in banana sikatoka disease with Cercospora musicola. Recommendations in Belize, where the problem developed, were to apply no more than 6-8 sprays with Tilt (propiconazol) of the 20 spray season. However, programs adopted by producers did not comply with these patterns and resistance quickly developed. Presently several companies plan to market triazoles in peanuts utilizing 2, 3, and sometimes 4 applications of a 7 spray calendar application schedule. Since the average peanut farmer in the southeast applies 5-6 applications per season, some companies are proposing spray schedules for triazoles that could exceed 50% of applications. Moreover, since many states are evaluating predictive systems that could reduce spray applications below the 7 presently recommended by the calendar system, the potential exists to have an even higher percentage of total treatments made with triazoles. The major benefit that triazoles provide is control of soil borne diseases caused by Rhizoctonia solani and Sclerotiwn rolfsii. These uses can best be preserved by predictive applications made at times appropriate for soil borne disease control that can also uubstitute for leafspot applications; two to three applications should suffice. Alternatively, tank mixtures of chlorothalonil and triazoles have also proven effective, sometimes at half the rate at which either component would be used when applied alone. This latter strategy preserves some of the curative benefits of the DMI fungicides in controlling peanut leafspots while greatly delaying the buildup of DMI resistant pathotypes. Triazole use can best be preserved by sale of these fungicides only in combination with nontriazole fungicides, and by use of triazoles applied alone only when used for predictive control of soil borne diseases, and then to a maximum of 50% of the regional average number of applications coupled with an education program to prevent misapplication by farmers.

56 Tank Mix Applications of Cvproconazole with Cblorothalonil for Control 1 of Peanut J,eaf Spot A. K. CULBREATH , T. B. BRENNEMAN, Dept. of Plant Pathology, The University of Georgia, Tifton, GA 31793-0748, and F. H. SHOKES, Dept. of Plant Pathology, Univ. of Florida, North Florida Res. and Ed. Center, Quincy, FL 32351. Field tests were conducted in Tifton and Plains, GA, and Marianna, FL in 1989 through 1991 to determine the efficacy of full-season tank mix applications of cyproconazole with chlorothalonil for control of late leaf spot of peanut (~ ~) caused by Cercosporidium personaturo. Treatments consisted of nontreated control, chlorothalonil at 1.26 kg a.i./ha alone and tank mix applications of 0.65 kg a.i. of chlorothalonil plus either 0.55 or 0.66 kg a.i. of cyproconazole. In all years and locations, leaf spot control achieved with the tank mix treatments was as good as with chlorothalonil alone, and in cases where leaf spot epidemics were severe, leaf spot control with the tank mix treatments was better than with chlorothalonil alone. In 1990 and 1991, tests were conducted in Tifton and Plains to determine the efficacy of tank mix .. combinations of low rates of chlorothalonil and cyproconazole for control of late leaf spot. Treatments consisted of factorial combinations of 0, 0.21, 0.42 and 0.63 kg ai/ha of chlorothalonil with 0, 0.012, 0.024, 0.048, 0.073 and 0.097 kg ai/ha of cyproconazole. In all locations and years, combinations of low rates of the two materials provided adequate control of leaf spot. Combinations of rates of the two materials that alone had little effect on the final disease severity reduced disease severity more than expected if control effects from the two materials were additive. Synergistic effects of cyproconazole tank mixed with chlorothalonil may improve leaf spot control compared to standard applications of chlorothalonil alone and may enhance the ability of this application practice to prevent development of resistant pathogen populations.

Risk of Resistance to $terol Bjosvnthesjs lnhibttors. W. KOLLER. Cornell University, Department of Plant Pathology, New York State Agricultural Experiment Station, Geneva, NY 14456. Sterol blosynthesis inhibitors (Sis) are modern fungicides expected to become available for the control of peanut diseases. Experience from Europe has indicated that field resistance to Sis can develop, although the speed of resistance development has been slower than for high risk compounds such as the benzimidazoles. For the Sis, the sensitivity spectrum of unexposed pathogen populations is broad, and individual isolates that comprise the resistant part of the sensitivity distribution can still be inhibited at in­ creasingly higher SI doses. Because field rates are restricted, a small portion of isolates not sufficiently supressed will slowly increase in frequency. The speed of resistance development will be determined by (a) the disease pressure, (b) the time of exposure to the Sis, and (c) the original frequency of resistant isolates. These three parameters determine the basis for current anti-resistance strategies. General rules are: (a) Reduce the speed of resistance development by reducing disease pressure. For the Sis, this rule implies the careful control of the disease with sufficiently high rates. Disease pressure on the Sis can also be reduced by a protectant fungicide used in mixture. (b) Reduce selection time by limited use of the Sis as single compounds. The Sis should not be applied season-long; they should be used at times where they are of greatest benefit, with alternative fungicides applied during the remaining disease cycle. (c) Reduce the frequency of resistant and thus selectable isolates. For the Sis, the term resistant and selectable is confined to isolates that produce sporulating leasions between two consecutive sprays. In contrast to benzimidazole-resistant isolates, this definition is dependent on the SI dose. Because the SI sensitivity distribution of field populations is continuous, the frequency of isolates allowed to sporulate decreases while the dose increases. A second opportunity for decreasing the frequency of resistant isolates is the use of fungicide mixtures consisting of two unrelated systemic compounds. The vast majority of isolates resistant to one component would be sensitive to the other.

57 Better Management of Fungicide Resistance. JOHN FRENCH, ISK Biotech, Mentor, OH 44061. For almost 20 years, the concept of and problems resulting fro~ resistance to certain classes of fungicides has been of commercial importance in crop agriculture. Strategies for managing problems due to resistance have been proposed by fungicide manufacturers, as well as by publicly supported agricultural research specialists. These strategies have enjoyed considerable success in many regions of the world, however, problems due to ~esistance still are increasing. One major reason for instances of failure to manage fungicide resistance is the lack of cooperation at the grower or end-user level. Improvements in programs will be discussed which are more customer-oriented, and which could reduce potential abuse of agricultural fungicides that are at risk from resistance.

Fundcide Resistance Research Within CIBA-GEIGY - A HaJor Part of Product Stewardship. G. R. WATSON, CIBA-GEIGY, Greensboro, NC 27419. Management of potential fungicide resistance has been a focus of CIBA-GEIGY for many years, concentrating on practices to maintain stewardship for products such as Ridomil8, Tilt®, and Topas8. Research has been conducted and sponsored by CIBA-GEIGY in the areas of: 1) development of appropriate fungicide sensitivity testing methods, 2) active monitoring of pathogen populations, 3) maintaining available testing for isolates suspected of decreased sensitivity, and 4) field research to identify and validate fungicide resistance management strategies. CIBA-GEIGY maintains laboratories active in this area of research throughout the world, particularly in Europe and the United States. Strategies for management of fungicide resistance have included development of pre-pack products containing active ingredients with different modes of action, limiting the number and timing of applications (decrease selection events), and development of label language to deter the prevalence of individuals with decreased fungicide sensitivity in pathogen populations.

Applications Strategies for Use of Tebuconazole on Peanut. K. A. NOEGEL, Miles Inc., Kansas City, HO 64120. Tebuconazole was researched in various foliar spray programs for management of Sclerotium J.:2.l..U.li, Rbizoctonia lt2lfilli, Cercospora arachidicola·, Cercosporidium personatum, and Puccinia arachidis on peanut, ~ b:iP2uli L. A use pattern was selected for optimum benefit to the peanut grower as well as for resistance management. The biological and physical properties of tebuconazole are best suited to a four-application block spray program, preceded and followed by applications of a protectant fungicide. Although targeted for soilborne diseases, tebuconazole also will provide protection against peanut leafspot and rust during the four-application schedule.

58 POSTERS

Triyja! Mavement and Dispersal Patterns of the Tobacco Thdps A. J. BIRDWHISTELL1, N. D. STONE1 and D. A. HERBERT-!· Dept. of Entomology, 1Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia 24061, and 2Tidewater Agricultural Experiment Station 6321 Holland Rd, Suffolk, Virginia 23437. A population of tobacco thrips, Frankliniella fusca (Hinds), was established in the center of a small field of peanuts and excluded from the rest of the field through the use of insecticides. Dispersal of the population outwards was monitored by taking daily samples of quadrifoliate leaf terminals for collecting thrips adults and immatures from the entire field. The quadrifoliant samples were taken from June 6 to July 26 1990 and May 23 to July 8 1991. Sticky traps were also used to monitor the migration of thrips in and around the field from May 21 to July 8 1991. The population movement data from both of these studies were analyzed and tested against data generated from hypothetical dispersion models. The peanut terminal samples showed that dispersal outwards from the center did not occur stepwise as expected, but seemed to expand uniformaly, filling the entire field. One explanation for this pattern was much more within field movement occurence than initially expected. Sticky trap data also supported the hypothesis that after an initial directional migration, thrips stopped moving between fields. Thrips were caught on sticky traps only during the first 2 weeks of the field season (20% of catch was identified as F. fusca), however there may have been thrips activity after trapping was discontinued. The drop in catches after the first two weeks could mean either that the thrips were no longer attracted to the traps or that they had ceased dispersing.

Contamjnation of Thrips by Tomato Spotted Wilt Virus as Determined hy El ISA. 0 K.K. KRESTA • F.L MITCHELL, Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, Rt. 2 Box 00, Stephenville TX 76401, J.W. SMITH, JR., and V.K. LOWRY, Department of Entomology, Texas A&M University, College Station TX 77843. Thrips adults and immatures were collected from peanut fields and weed hosts and examined by ELISA for the presence of tomato spotted wilt virus (TSWV). Adults were identified to species, and immatures identified to life stage. Tobacco thrips, Frankliniella ~.and western flower thrips, frankHnjella ocddentalis were collected from peanut. Only tobacco thrips tested positive from this host. Immatures collected from peanut plants infected with TSWV were more likely to be contaminated with TSWV. However, adult th rips contaminated by the virus were common both on infected and uninfected peanut plants. Collections made from weed hosts included western flower thrips, franklinjel!a ..m.in.ul.a. Frankliniella williamsi, Frank!jnjella tritid, Microcephalothrips ahdominalis, Aelothrjps sp. and immature thrips. In weed hosts. only western flower th rips tested positive forTSWV.

Population Dynamics of Thrjps Yectorini: Tomato Spotted Wi!t virus in Texas Peanut fklm. F.L MITCHELL*, Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, Rt. 2 Box 00, Stephenville TX 76401, J.W. SMITH, JR., and H.B. HIGHLAND, Department of Entomology, Texas A&M University, College Station TX n843. Adult and immature thrips were sampled from peanut ~ ~ L) flowers and foliage on a weekly basis. Peanut terminals and flowers were counted weekly as well, and the number of thrips per meter of row per week was determined in nine fields over two years. Larval populations were seasonally de~ while adult populations were found to be low and erratic over the field season. Insecticidal control of thrips was never complete, and populations rebounded quickly. Remedial insecticidal treatments for tomato spotted wilt virus (TSWV) were also inconsistent, as demonstrated by prevalence curves for TSWV infecting peanut. Planting date affected thrips density. Early planted peanut had more thrips per terminal than late planted peanut, while late planted peanut had more thrips per meter of row.

59 Sootted Wilt Disease ITSWV) Incidence jn Peanut following various Insecticjde Application Regimes for Tbrios Vector Control. J. W. Todd• and J. R. Chamberlin, Department of Entomology, A. K. Culbreath, Department of Plant Pathology, The University of Georgia, Tifton, GA 31793, and J. W. Demski, Department of Plant Pathology, The University of Georgia, Griffin, GA 30223. Frankliniellafusca (Hinds) and Frankliniella occidentalis (Pergrande) are two of seven thrips species known to vector tomato spotted wilt virus (TSWV). Both of these species are found in peanut, although F. occidentalis has not been shown to reproduce on peanut. Adult populations of F. occidentalis seem to be only transitory in peanut, whereas adult and larval populations of F. jusca are found at low levels for the remainder of the growing season after peaking 4 to 6 weeks after planting. TSWV is acquired only by the larvae and is spread mainly by adults. Peanut may be fed upon by in-migrating or overwintering populations of thrips containing viruliferous individuals constituting primary TSWV infection. Additionally, larvae arising from the initial or subsequent generations may acquire the virus from previously infected plants and survive to infect other plants in the same field constituting secondary spread. Theoretically, one would expect that secondary spread of TSWV could be minimized by applications of efficacious insecticides directed toward control of larval thrips populations. Furthermore, it is highly unlikely that primary infection would be significantly reduced by insecticidal control of adult thrips. Incidence of TSWV in 'Florunner' and 'Southern Runner' peanut treated with Thimet* applied in-furrow@ 1.0 Al/A at-planting, Orthene• sprays applied weekly season-long or a combination of these 2 treatment regimes was investigated in three replicated small-plot experiments planted in early April, early May or early June at the Attapulgus Research Farm of the Georgia Agricultural Experiment Station. Incidence of TSWV was higher in both cultivars planted in early April and early June than in those planted in early May. Thimet applied in-furrow at-planting plus weekly applications of Orthene suppressed TSWV incidence compared with the nontreated checks, although the combinations of both insecticides on Florunner still allowed TSWV incidence to reach levels as high or higher than that of nontreated Southern Runner. Incidence ofTSWV in Florunner which received the combination insecticide treatments was approximately half that of those plots that were not treated with insecticides.

Performance of Peanuts

60 An Overview of the Peanut (Arachis hyeoqaea L.) Crop in Mexico. SAMUEL SANCHEZ DOMINGUEZ. Departamento de Fitotecnia, Universidad Aut6noma chapingo, Chapingo, Mex. 56230. Peanut is a very important pulse crop which was grown by the prehispanic culture in Mexico. Some archaeological evidences indicate that peanut was known by the Mesoamerican people like the Aztecs. In this century, peanut has been cultivated on up to 100,000 ha in Mexico. currently only approximently 48,00-50,000 ha are being grown by mexican farmers.Mexico has two main regions where peanut is grown: Northern areas (states of Chihuahua, Sonora, Sinaloa and Nayarit) and Southern region (states of Morelos, Puebla, Guerrero, Guanajuato and Chiapas). In the first region high technology (selected varieties, mechanized systems, irrigation and good pest control) is used by farmers. on the other hand, in southern areas due to the rainfed system very low levels of technology are used, except in Coast of Oaxaca. In the other states, some topographic and economic aspects -~- limit appropriate agronomic practices. Most of the peanut germoplasm used is criollos (land races), although in northern areas selected varieties from U.S.A. are being sowed. Consequently , mexican pod yield are: Northern areas, 2.0-4.0 t ha-1; southern areas (rainfed conditions) 1.0-1.5 t ha-1. It is known that the American Peanut Council is interested in the peanut industry in Mexico. It is possible that if the Free Trade Agreement between Mexico and United States of America is signed, funds for peanut production in Mexico will be available.

A Blot Assay for Detection of Peanut Arainase S.Y. CHUNG* and Y.M. BORDELON. USDA-AAS, Southern Regional Research Center, 1100 Robert E. Lee Boulevard, P.O. Box 19687, New Orleans, Louisiana 70179. Little is known about the cause for the decrease in levels of free arginine in mature peanuts as compared to immature peanuts which have higher levels of free arginine. We hypothesized that the decrease could be due to an increase in the level of arginase which catalyzes the conversion of arginine to L-ornithine and urea. To support our hypothesis, a detection method for arginase is needed. Conventional methods for detection of arginase based on measurement of urea are tedious and subject to interference. We, therefore, developed a novel and simple procedure for detection of arginase using an arginine- or canavanine-enzyme conjugate as the detecting system. In the method, the arginase sample was subject to gel electrophoresis, followed by eletrotransferring to a polyvinylidene difluoride (PVDF} membrane. The resulting arginase on the membrane was then detected with the arginine-enzyme conjugate having an affinity for the arginase, and visualized as a colored band after incubation with a substrate for the bound enzyme conjugate. The detection limit of the assay was 2 µg of arginase on the membrane. Requirements for successful detection include use of a spacer arm introduced into the enzyme conjugate and a buffer (0.01 M sodium borate) which does not interact with

MnCl2 to form precipitates during incubation. MnCl2 is required for the membrane-bound arginase to remain active and bind to the arginine or canavanine conjugate. Conjugates were prepared respectively through a sequential reaction between arginine (or canavanine), NHS-LC-biotin, and avidin·peroxidase (or avidin-phosphatase). Arginine- or canavanine-LC-biotin-avidin-peroxidase conjugate gave the best result (i.e., high signal and low background) with lmmobilon P membranes while arginine·LC-biotin-avidin phosphatase conjugate performed best with Bio Rad PVDF membranes. Application of this method to detecting arginase in peanut samples is being investigated.

61 Viscosity Changes in the Hydration of peanut Butter. T.O.M. Nakayama. Dept. of Food Science and Technology,_ University of Georgia, Experiment Station, Griffin GA 30223 Attempts to modify the physical properties of peanut butter have been tried since the appearance of commercial suppliers. These have included additions of syrups, honey, milk solids, vegetable oils, and other diluents. Hater has been tried, but the resulting shortened shelf life precluded its advantages as a ready to eat shelf stable item. The hydration and use of tehina, a sesame seed butter, prompted us to look again at water. Addition of a small increment of water produced a greatly stiffened product. Further additions increased the stiffness until a maximum was reached. Hhen an equal weight of water has been added with mixing, the emulsion is changed in its adhesive properties and resembles mayonnaise in consistency. The effect of pH is to produce two maxima which suggest that the soluble protein is responsible. Comparisons with sesame butter, almond butter, and pecan butter indicate that the emulsification can be explained as a result of protein hydration and subsequent emulsification of the oil into an oil in water emulsion.

Phytoalexin Induction In Peanut Leaves. S.M. Basha, Plant Biotechnology Laboratory, Division of Agricultural Sciences, Florida A&M University, Tallahassee, Fl 32307 Cercospora leaf-spot has been recognized as a major disease problem in the Southern United States peanut production area. A high incidence of lesions result in extensive defoliation of leaflets, loss of vigor and reduced yield. Attempts to control leaf-spot diseases have concentrated on the use of fungicides and other chemicals. Our research efforts are focused on enhancing natural resistance of peanut to leaf-spot diseases. In this connection, phytoalexin involvement in disease resistance is being studied. Phytoalexin induction was achieved in the mature and immature peanut leaves, damaging by injury and incubation at 25 °C for 10 days. The phytoalexins were extracted from the leaves and fractionated by HPLC. The data showed that damaged peanut leaves produced 3 to 5 phytoalexin peaks depending upon their maturity status and condition of incubation, while the undamaged leaves (control) produced no phytoalexins. The mature leaves produced relatively higher amount of phytoalexins than the immature leaves. Studies are in progress to determine the effect of temperature, water activity and genotype on phytoalexin producing ability of the peanut leaves. Furthermore, methods are also being developed to induce phytoalexin production in the leaves following infestation of leaves with Cercospora spp.

62 Factors Affecting Adventitious Shoot Formation from Mature Leaf Explants of Arachis villosulicarpa Hoehne K. B. DUNBAR. and R. N. PITTMAN. USDA, ARS, SAA, REG. PL. INTRO. STN. 1109 Experiment Street Griffin, GA 30223-1797. Adventitious shoot formation has important applications in genetic transformations, vegetative propagation, and germplasm storage. This investigation was conducted to evaluate factors that affect adventitious shoot formation from mature leaf explants of Arachis species. Light intensity, explant age, gelling agent, phytohormone, and genotype were observed to affect adventitious shoot formation from mature explants of Arachis species. Changing the gelling agent in the regeneration medium from agar to rice starch produced a 3-fold increase in the number of shoot buds produced from leaf explants of A· villosulicarpa. Mature leaf explants of A· villosulicarpa produced an average of 50 shoots and buds after 25 days in culture at 25 c, with a 16 hour photoperiod of 100 µmo1m· 2s· 1, on a medium with MS salts, 85 vitamins, 5 µM a-naphthaleneacetic acid and 5 µM 6-benzylaminopurine, and solidified with 120 g/l rice starch. Mature leaf explants of 13 Arachis species were cultured for 30 days on a medium with MS salts, 85 vitamins, 30 g/l sucrose, 5 µM a-naphthaleneacetic acid, 5 µM 6- benzylaminopurine, and solidified with 8 g/l agar. After tissue from these cultures was transferred to medium with reduced auxin, shoots or shoot buds were regenerated from the cultures of A· burkartii, A· liqnosa, A· paraquariensis, A· repens, A· riqonii, A· tuberosa, A· villosa, and A· villosulicarpa. The high rate of shoot regeneration observed from mature leaf explants of lb.. villosulicarpa may allow it to be a model to test factors which affect adventitious shoot formation from lb.. species.

Spray-Tank-Mix Compatibility of Manganese. Boron. and Fungicide II: Visual Demonstration. D. C. MARTENS and N. L. POWELL". Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Suffolk, VA. Mixtures of manganese and boron with pesticides and applied as a foliar spray to the peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) crop is a common practice. This study was conducted to determine the compatibility of mixing manganese with boron in the spray water. Spray mixtures of the chelated manganese salt of ethylene diamine tetra-acetate (EDTA) and the inorganic salts of manganese as manganese sulfate (Tecmangam), manganese sulfate monohydrate, manganese chloride, and manganese nitrate were developed with deep-well water. These mixtures were also made up in combination with boron as boric acid or disodium octaborate tetrahydrate. All mixtures were also made up in combination with the fungicides cupric hydroxide plus sulfur and chlorothalonil. Mixtures were equivalent to normal recommended rates of manganese, boron, and fungicide applied to the foliage in 140 L ha·1 of spray volume. Because of the high pH of deep-well water, addition of the manganese inorganic salts to the water caused a slight precipitate to form. The chelated manganese did not precipitate. With addition of disodium octaborate tetrahydrate, the solution pH was increased and more precipitates formed from the inorganic salts. The chelated manganese remained in solution. With addition of boric acid to the manganese solution and deep-well water, pH was decreased and no apparent precipitate formed. Mixtures of these formulations are on display for visual observation. Because of flocculation none of the manganese materials should be mixed with cupric hydroxide plus sulfur for foliar application. The inorganic salts of manganese and disodium octaborate tetra hydrate should not be mixed in water alone or with chlorothalonil for foliar application.

63 Minutes of the Board of Directors Meeting AMERICAN PEANUT RESEARCH AND EDUCATION SOCIETY Eppington Room, Omni Hotel Norfolk, Virginia July 7, 1992

1. The meeting of the Board of Directors was called to order at 7:05 pm by President Charles Simpson.

Those present were: C. Simpson, R. Sholar, B. Branch, G. Buchanan, D. Gorbet, H. Melouk, T. Stalker, 0. Smith, M. Porter, L Tripp, D. Dougherty, G. Sullivan, D. Welch, T. Sanders, S. Wright, M. Schubert, H. Pattee, ~ C. Stacy, W. Mozingo, and K. Cutchins.

2. Reading of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting - Ron Sholar, Executive Officer

The minutes were approved as published in the 1991 Proceedings. The Board then approved an amended agenda for the meeting.

3. Reports were made as follows:

a. Executive Officer Report - Ron Sholar

The Executive Officer reported on the financial status of the society. He reported that APRES remains in excellent condition and that assets increased significantly during the past year. He reported that the Chair of the Finance Committee would provide a complete report on APRES finances. The Executive Officer reported that APRES has approximately 600 members. It is anticipated that over 325 will register for the 1992 meeting.

b. American Society of Agronomy Liaison Report - Bill Branch

Bill Branch reported that the 83rd annual meeting of the American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, and the Soil Science Society

of America was held October 27-November 11 1991 1 in Denver, Colorado. The theme for this year's meeting was •Global Agronomic Opportunities•. Approximately 2575 papers were presented in 279 sessions and slightly over half of the papers were given as posters. Members of APRES were authors or co-authors on some 12 total presentations involving various aspects of peanut research.

The 1992 meetings of the three sister societies will be held November 1-6 in Minneapolis, Minnesota.

64 c. Southern Agricultural Experiment Station Directors Report - Gale Buchanan

Gale Buchanan prefaced his remarks with a report on CAST activities. He complimented Dan Gorbet for the job he is doing as the APR ES representative on the CAST Board of Directors.

Dr. Buchanan reported that the spring meeting of the Southern Regional Association of State Agricultural Experiment Station Directors was held in Knoxville, Tennessee, in May.

Dr. Buchanan reported that peanuts continue to be one of the commodities included in the Southern Region IPM program which is administered by the Southern Agricultural Experiment Station Directors. Some projects pertaining to peanuts were funded under this program in the last series of awards.

Funding continues to be a major concern of the Southern Experiment Station Directors. A major effort is underway at the national level to support base funding through Hatch and Regional Research, as well as designated special grants.

Dr. Buchanan indicated that the issue of experimental quota of peanuts involved in research continues to be a major concern of the Directors. He stated that Southern Region Agricultural Experiment Station Directors continue to have a special interest in APRES.

d. CAST Report - Dan Gorbet

The Board of Directors of CAST met in Kansas City in August. Numerous topics were discussed and reported on by the various committees. At the Washington, D.C., meeting in March, 1992, Dr. Gale Buchanan took over as President for CAST (1992-93).

Dr. Stanley P. Wilson has retired as Executive Vice-President of CAST, effective June 30, 1992. Dr. Wilson is former vice-president for agriculture, home economics, and veterinary medicine at Auburn University and has served as CAST Executive Vice-President since June 1, 1990.

Dr. Gorbet reported on the guidelines and criteria for CAST consideration for reports:

1. The topic should be of broad national concern and there should be a compelling need for the information. Topics on which legislative or regulatory decisions are pending, are likely to be made in the near future, or are perceived as being seriously needed, should be given highest

65 priority. Regional and state issues may be considered if they have evident potential for national concern.

2. The topic should benefit from a multidisciplinary approach and should relate to one or more of the scientific disciplines represented in CAST member societies. Topics that fall within the boundaries of a single member society are not normally addressed by CAST.

3. With topics dealing with products, the perspective should be broad (e.g., explaining the impacts of agricultural mechanization rather than building a case of public funding of research on agricultural mechanization).

Dr. Gorbet reported on recently published reports by CAST and reports that will be published in the next year or so. (Editor's Note: A complete listing is included in the CAST report.)

Dr. Gorbet indicated that he has been involved in reviewing manuscripts for CAST publications.

4. New Business - The following ad hoc committee reports were made:

a. Annual Meeting - George Alston

Dr. Alston reported that his committee had studied the possibility of changing the meeting days for the annual meeting. This was done because of suggestions that the meeting format be changed. His committee discussed two possibilities:

1. Current format (Tues - committee meetings; Wed and Thurs - presentations; Fri - business meeting) 2. New format (Wed - committee meetings; Thurs and Fri - presentations; Sat - business meeting)

Advantages of the new format would be: 1. Permit Monday in office for some members 2. Permit overnight Saturday stay to take advantage of lower airfares 3. Potential increase in graduate student involvement (due to lower airfares)

Disadvantages considered were: 1. Participation might be reduced (because of historical affiliation with current dates) 2. Location choices might be limited if Friday and Saturday nights are included as weekend rates are normally higher

66 3. Some members might be unwilling to travel on the weekend 4. Industry response must be considered. Would industry continue to support sponsored events if some had to occur at more expensive weekend rates?

The ad hoc committee suggested either staying with the current format or polling the entire society membership to determine the interest in changing the meeting dates. Polling could be done through Peanut Research or a separate mailout. The first possible meeting under the new format would likely be in 1996.

The Board then discussed the report in detail. It was pointed out that the current format had worked well for more than 20 years. The Board decided to take a show of hands at the Friday Business Meeting to determine whether to pursue changing the format. The Board decided that a vote of a minimum of 70% in favor of the change would be required to pursue putting the issue to a vote of the entire membership.

Editor's Note: The vote at the Business Meeting was less than 700k in favor of pursuing a change in the meeting format and the current format will be maintained.

b. New Book -Tom Whitaker

Dr. Whitaker reported that his committee was working under the guidelines laid down by the Board of Directors in July 1991.

Dr. Whitaker pointed out that this is the second ad hoc committee to look at developing a new book. The first committee recommended that a new book be published but that it be different in the following ways from Peanut Science and Technology:

1. That chapters contain material that was not previously covered or that chapters be completed when major revisions were warranted. 2. That the new book have a different title. 3. That the number of copies be 1500 or less.

Dr. Whitaker then presented a series of comments and recommendations to the Board as follows:

1. The editors of the new book will be Ors. Harold Pattee and Tom Stalker. 2. The proposed chapters and authors were developed by Ors. Pattee and Stalker. These were presented to the ad hoc committee with the ad hoc committee adding two

67 chapters. These were •cultural Practices• and •fertilization•. 3. The proposed title is •Advances in Peanut Science•. 4. The length will be 525 pages. 5. Pierce Printers of North Carolina has indicated that the book should cost about $16.00 per copy. 6. Recommend that a professional indexer be used. 7. The time table for completion would be to start immediately and the book would be printed by March 1995. 8. Recommend that the ad hoc committee stay intact to assist.with the book as needed. ... 9. Recommend that the editors be permitted to choose substitute senior authors (with approval of the ad hoc committee) if a selected senior author declines. 10. All authors would be provided with a free copy. 11. Reprints will not be made available. 12. Photos and figures will be in black and white. Due to increased costs, any color costs would be the responsibility of senior authors.

Dr. Whitaker then read a list of proposed chapters. He indicated that the suggested chapters came from input from authors of chapters in Peanut Science and from Ors. Pattee and Stalker. Discussion was held on whether the book would be international in scope or just have a US flavor. Discussion was also held on the proper place for coverage of genetics in the new book.

The Board approved the recommendations of the ad hoc committee and requested that the editors proceed with publishing the new book.

c. Changes to the By-Laws • Charles Simpson

Dr. Simpson explained the need to make changes in Art VIII, Sec 2 of the By-Laws. This change was necessitated by the resignation of one Board member and the addition of two state employee representatives on the Board. A copy of the proposed change was sent to Board members more than 30 days in advance of the Board meeting. The Board approved the following change:

Old-(beginning at the colon after •follows• in Line 3. Page 152. 1991 APRES Proceedings): •e, 1972; d and f(1), 1973; and f(2) and f(3), 1974.•

Change: •d(VC area), e and f(2), 1992; d(SE area) and f(3), 1993; and d(SW area) and f(1), 1994•.

68 This change will be voted on by the membership at the business meeting on July 10.

5. Committee Reports

a. Nominating Committee Report - Carroll Johnson

Dr. Johnson reported that the 1992 APRES Nominating Committee met informally via telephone and personal visits in April of 1992. It was the consensus of the Committee to nominate the following individuals as representatives to the APRES Board of Directors:

President-Elect: Dallas Hartzog USDA Representative: Thomas Whitaker VC Area State Employee Representative: Charles Swann Shelling, Marketing, Storage Industry Representative: Doyle Welch

b. Finance Committee Report - Olin Smith

Dr. Smith reported that the Finance Committee met at 4:00 p.m. He noted that all committee members were present. He also noted that the President, President Elect, and Executive Officer were present.

The Committee received and approved the financial report presented by Executive Officer Ron Sholar. Society income for the year totalled $85,343 which was about $20,000 over the 1991-92 budget. The increase was due to outstanding contributions by industry supporters and the increase in registration fees (from $30 to $55) that went into effect this year.

The June 30, 1992, assets totalled $140,639.68, a $19,000 increase over the June 30, 1991 balance of $121,946. Assets include $85,030 in savings, $31,000 checking, and $24,600 book inventory. The checking account balance will be reduced measurably with payment of expenses related to the annual meeting.

The Committee recommended that the Publication and Editorial Committee consider a special emphasis to sell more copies of PEANUT SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY to reduce inventory (1,070 books) prior to publication of the new book targeted for publication in 1995.

Or. Smith pointed out that the old registration fee would have covered only about 40% of the total meeting costs. The proposed budget for the next fiscal year will be $75,650.

There was discussion about how to sell more copies of Peanut Science and Technology. Ron Sholar indicated the inventory should be sold down to around 200 copies with some copies kept in APRES inventory.

69 c. Fellows Committee Report • Morris Porter

Dr. Porter reminded the Board that Fellows are selected based on primary area achievements, secondary area achievements, and service to the profession. The Fellows Committee had six members. The committee made its selections and the candidates were presented to President Simpson on May

51 1992. The society can elect only three to Fellowship in any year. Dr. Porter indicated that the selectees were voted on by the Board of Directors and they were informed by the Society. The new Fellows will be announced at the business meeting.

Dr. Porter suggested that the Format for Fellows Nominations needs to be changed. The Fellows Committee recommended the following change:

Old (Page 112 of 1991 Proceedings) Para lllB2: ·supporting Letters: Three supporting letters should be included, at least two of which are from active members of the Society.•

Recommended Change: ·supporting Letters: A minimum of three (3) but not more than five (5) supporting letters are to be included for the nominee. Two of the three required supporting letters must be from active members of the Society.•

The Board unanimously approved the recommendation of the Fellows Committee dealing with supporting letters and the change will become effective with the 1993 elections.

d. NPC Research and Education Award Committee Report - Leland Tripp

Committee chair Leland Tripp reported that the 1992 National Peanut Council Research and Education Award Committee had seven entries to consider this year for the National Peanut Council Research and Education Award. Dr. Johnny Wynne was declared winner and the award was presented by the National Peanut Council at the annual meeting in April.

Dr. Tripp discussed the fact that the NPC is considering changing the selection procedures for this award. He pointed out that the selection procedure is very straight forward but nominators are failing to follow the instructions.

e. Bailey Award Committee Report - Tom Stalker

Committee chair Tom Stalker reported that thirteen papers were nominated for the Bailey Award at the 1991 APRES meeting held in San Antonio, Texas.

70 Each of the thirteen papers were presented by the senior author who was a member of APRES. On August 5, 1991, the senior author of the nominated paper was notified of the nomination and an original manuscript based on the presentation was requested by January 7, 1992. Twelve of the thirteen nominees responded with a manuscript. Submitted manuscripts were judged by four of the six Bailey Award Committee members (two committee members' papers were nominated and manuscripts were submitted). Papers were judged on appropriateness, originality, clarity, and scientific excellence. On April 15, 1992, the Committee reached a consensus on the Bailey Award winner and the President, Executive Officer, and President-Elect were notified.

The award winner will be announced at the business meeting.

The Committee suggested that the criteria for the Bailey Award be published annually in the PROCEEDINGS and/or PEANUT RESEARCH. The guidelines are currently in several issues of the PROCEEDINGS because changes have been made over the years, and several problems have arisen (for example, papers presented at annual meetings with different authorship than manuscripts judged); and the committee suggested that the President formally ask the Bailey Award Committee to synthesize all guidelines, policies and suggested changes and present the information to the Board of Directors at the 1993 APRES meetings and then publish the information thereafter.

Walt Mozingo as President Elect agreed to do this.

f. Coyt T. Wilson Distinguished Service Award Committee Report - David Dougherty

The Wilson Award Committee received nominations and selected a winner. The committee will publish information on Coyt Wilson and information on the award in Peanut Research in order to publicize the award.

g. DowElanco Awards Committee Report - Gene Sullivan

Dr. Sullivan retraced the steps that led to creation of the DowElanco Awards. At the 1991 meeting, President Simpson appointed a committee to establish the guidelines for the awards. This was to take advantage of the offer by DowElanco to sponsor awards for research and extension. This offer was for up to five years. The committee established the eligibility and criteria for the award and a nomination form was created. The committee conducted its business by mail. The committee solicited nominations and selected recipients. The winners will be announced at the business meeting.

President Simpson indicated that the Executive Committee had approved the selection procedure but that it needed full Board approval. The Board of

71 Directors voted to approve the selection guidelines with one change. The revised guidelines will require that three supporting letters must be submitted with the nomination.

h. Graduate Student Competition (Joe Sugg Award) Committee Report - Hassan Melouk

Dr. Melouk pointed out that the Graduate Student Competition had two objectives:

1. Recognize excellence in graduate education 2. Showcase APRES graduate student work in a meeting

The current format is to have a special session to handle graduate student presentations. Six papers will be presented at the 1992 meeting. Judges will select first and second place papers.

Dr. Melouk presented suggested guidelines for conducting the competition in the future. Much discussion ensued. The Board voted to distribute guidelines to the membership and study the results for deciding on the Mure format for the competition. The Graduate Student Competition Committee will develop the materials for determining member attitudes about the format.

i. Public Relations Committee Report - Doyle Welch

Doyle Welch indicated his committee discussed several possibilities for activities for the Public Relations Committee. Among these were how to increase membership, publishing information on award winners, and necrology.

The committee discussed the following:

1. Pictures should be provided by award recipients and should be provided to the· Executive Officer. These pictures and accompanying stories could be provided to newspapers and to the agricultural press. 2. Consideration should be given to developing a society scrapbook of pictures taken at the annual meeting. 3. The committee knew of only one death during the past year - Mr. Eli Goldin of Israel. Dr. Coffelt pointed out that Mr. Goldin developed the 'Shulamit' peanut cultivar. 4. Consideration should be given to asking someone who typically attends other peanut meetings such as the NPC, Southwestern and Southeastern Peanut Shellers Conventions to make a short presentation on APRES goals and objectives. This could help increase support

72 for APRES and increase industry participation in APRES. This could be done by APRES providing written material (a letter) to be used for this purpose.

Considerable discussion ensued on the type of brochure or letter that APRES needs to develop. It was agreed that both a new brochure and a letter are needed. Doyle Welch indicated that a letter of information is needed for industry relations. This would also let industry or congress know what kind of expertise is available in APRES.

j. Peanut Quality Committee Report - Tim Sanders

Chairman Tim Sanders indicated that one of the concerns discussed by his committee is the interest, focus, and direction of the peanut quality committee - or what the committee is about. He indicated the committee is to promote quality improvement in the industry. The committee decided on a series of agenda items which they will attempt to get in Peanut Research.

The committee discussed three items of business:

1. Need to prepare additional Quality Methods as originally planned. Dr. Sam Ahmed had much of the material in Florida at the time of his death and some of it may be lost. The discussion focused on the need for new methods such as hull scrape, alcohol meter, and basic chemistry. Dr. Sanders as Editor of Quality Methods will develop a list of topics to solicit individuals to write methods. 2. The committee heard a presentation by Gordon Patterson of Hersheys. Hersheys is moving forward with quality improvement in their operations. 3. Discussion in which Olin Smith, Dan Gorbet, and Terry Coffelt participated on early maturing varieties. Focus was on whether they are early maturing or simply early yielding and the quality implication that may come from this. This discussion was joined by many participants.

Dr. Sanders recommended that some direction be given to the chair of the Peanut Quality Committee because there is no consistent direction for the committee.

k. Site Selection Committee Report - Scott Wright

The schedule for the annual meeting of APRES is:

July 13-16, 1993 - Huntsville, Alabama - Huntsville Hilton Hotel (room rates are $65.00 single, double, triple, quad)

73 July 12-15, 1994 - Tulsa, Oklahoma - Sheraton Kensington Hotel (room rates are $55.00 single, double; $65.00 triple, quad)

The committee recommended Charlotte, North Carolina for the 1995 meeting. Date and hotel have not been selected. The Board agreed that the Site Selection Committee should choose the most advantageous dates for the 1995 meeting.

I. Publication and Editorial Committee Report - Mike Schubert

The Committee received Harold Pattee's Editorial Committee Report. PEANUT SCIENCE operated in the black this year with an income of $25,255.03 and expenses of $23,319.45 resulting in almost $2000 net profit. Forty two manuscripts were submitted. Eighteen articles and a 4-page index were printed in the July-December 1991 issue and 16 articles were printed in the January-June 1992 issue for a total of 34 papers published. Twenty-three articles are currehtly in review and nine articles have been accepted for the 1992-93 issues. The proposed budget for PEANUT SCIENCE for next year indicates it will be in the black.

Retiring from the PEANUT SCIENCE Editorial Board after six years of service are Dallas L. Hartzog; Walt Mozingo; and James Young. Replacements approved, pending acceptance by the nominees, are Ed Colburn, Texas A&M University, Production; and John Cundiff, Agricultural Engineering.

Electronic submission of manuscripts was discussed. Two trial electronic submissions worked well. The Committee approved a proposal to invite voluntary electronic submissions to PEANUT SCIENCE. Submissions should include both disk file and hard copies. Benefits would include making Mure page charge increases less likely, reducing printer-generated errors, and uniformity in appearance of tables.

The Committee discussed waiving page charges in PEANUT SCIENCE. On rare occasions governmental policies or currency exchange circumstances generate a request for waiving page charges for a paper from a foreign scientist. The Committee recommended that the Editor of PEANUT SCIENCE and Chair of the Publication and Editorial Committee be authorized to waive page charges in exceptional situations. The Board of Directors voted to approve this.

Corley Holbrook reported that things are going smoothly on PEANUT RESEARCH. Tom Stalker is stepping down as a contributing editor. The Committee will publicly recognize Tom for his contributions.

Doyle Welch, Public Relations Committee Chair, proposed that a brochure or letter be circulated to members, prospective members, growers, shelters, other industry groups, and political and government leaders letting them know

74 what APRES is doing for the peanut industry. The Publication and Editorial Committee endorsed the need to revise the previous APRES brochure and agreed to work with the Public Relations Committee. This could aid in pulling diverse parts of the industry together.

m. Program Committee - Walt Mozingo

Walt Mozingo commented that the Program Committee had excellent people to work with and thanked the committee chairs. He indicated that 60 sponsors helped with the meeting and that over $10000 had been collected in amounts from $100-500 to help with coffee breaks etc.

The program lists 101 papers. This includes 6 graduate student papers.

Clifton Stacy indicated that he was the only peanut producer on the Board and a 4-day meeting is difficult to attend. Gale Buchanan pointed out that APRES needs to get more producers involved such as is the case with the cotton industry.

5. President Simpson adjourned the meeting.

75 Opening Remarks by the President at the 1992 Business Meeting of APRES July 10, 1992

Charles E. Simpson

Welcome, ladies and gentlemen, to the Awards Presentations and the 24th annual Business Meeting of APRES.

A hearty thank you to each of you for being here and making these meetings the success they have been. I take this opportunity to thank Mr. Walt Mozingo and his committees for planning and organizing a very productive meeting. We would like to recognize the Local Arrangements Committee, co­ chaired by Mr. W. M. Birdsong and Dr. F. Scott Wright. Bill and Scott, I would like for you and your committees to stand and be recognized. We also recognize the Technical Program Committee, chaired by Dr. Terry Coffelt. Terry, would you and your committee please stand and be recognized. We also recognize the Ladies Program Committee, chaired by Mrs. Joyce Wright. Joyce, please stand with your committee and be recognized. We thank each member of these committees for their diligent efforts to make this annual meeting a huge success and very enjoyable. The full list of these committees is shown in your program.

I also want to thank all the other committee chairs and their committees for serving this year. Your hard work has combined to make this a successful year for APRES.

We give special thanks and recognition to those companies and organizations who so generously supported this gathering financially and with products and/or service. I would like to especially thank those companies who sponsored our social events:

Rhone-Poulenc: Ice Cream Social Tuesday night ISK-Biotech: Spirit of Norfolk Cruise Wednesday night Valent, DowElanco, and American Cyanamid: International Dinner Thursday night American Cyanamid: Awards Breakfast Friday morning

A complete list of contributors is in the back of your program. We say thank you to each of you.

I want to say a special thank you to Dr. Ron Sholar for keeping me on track this past year. Ron, thank you for all your hard work.

76 I want to give a special thank you to a person who quietly does a great deal of work for our Society and gets very little recognition for it. Linda Sholar, would you please stand and let us say •many thanks·.

Before we have the awards presentations, I would like to make a few brief remarks as your President.

There have been many changes in our world and our organization since I made my first trip to Norfolk twenty-five years ago and attended the last PIWG meeting when our Society was formed. Since that time the Viet Nam War finally ended, man walked on the moon, we elected a peanut farmer as President of the USA, and then we voted in a movie star! We saw the cold war almost erupt into flames more than once, China opened her doors, if ever so slightly, and then-who would ever have thought it-the total collapse of the Communist Soviet Union.

Meanwhile APRES has persisted, grown, and become a dynamic and yet stable Society. We have published two books_ and are preparing for a third, we have no less than eleven standing committees and almost 600 members. To emphasize our stability, I looked in the membership lists for our first year, 1968- 69. Of those 119 individual members, at least 33 are still active. One, then Board Member, is serving again this year as chair of a major committee-Leland Tripp. Two committee chairs from that first year are still active members-Harold Pattee and Frank McGill. Of the 65 sustaining and organizational members in 1968-69, more than 30 are still active, several with different names but still active. This type of devotion and longevity adds a lot of stength to APRES. We have undergone many changes, but in many ways we have simply undergirded the reason we are here-to promote the peanut and its use.

Our businesses, extension, and research have experienced some drastic changes, but I get the strong feeling •we ain't seen nothing yer. What with budget cuts, loss of political influence for agriculture, GATT, and a weak economy, where are we headed?

I really cannot answer that question, but I personally think we will be okay! I think we, as an organization and an industry, will meet the challenge. Growers groups, shellers, and the National Peanut Council recognize the need and are putting their financial and other support in places that help immensely.

And we, and I speak to and of the Research and Extension people, as scientists, realize we can make a difference. We continue to learn new and quicker ways to accomplish our objectives. I remember my first attempt at using a computer several years ago. My thought at the time, •No Way", and now I take it home with me like a close friend. And now Biotechnology! I am not very comfortable with a lot of it. I'll bet I am not alone. But we must learn

77 to use these tools so that they fit like a rubber glove. There are those in this room who are already this comfortable with Biotech, and with computers-there are others of us who are still working on it.

I spoke of the strength of APRES. We have other strengths, such as our many hard-working members who have joined our organization in the years since 1969. And our strength also lies in our newest members-some brilliant, well-trained minds-many of them understand Biotech, and they thrive on it. These new members are the Mure leaders of APRES. I challenge those of you in this group who have been members of APRES for one, two or just a few years; be active in APRES. When you are asked to serve on a committee, serve and serve well. And if you are not asked to serve on a committee, let the President know you want to serve the Society. I guarantee, he will find a place for your contribution.

And I would be remiss if I did not emphasize another of our strengths, that is our strong industry support. Cases in point are the many social and meal activities we have enjoyed this week, and the new awards that will be made in a few minutes, sponsored by DowElanco. These types of awards, along with the other support so many companies and organizations provide, have kept us moving forward through these twenty-four years.

To all of you I say, "Keep up the good work", and with the help of The Almighty God we will continue to grow and be productive. Thank you. It has been an honor and pleasure to serve as your President for the past year, and I intend to continue my service to APRES.

78 Business Meeting and Awards Ceremony AMERICAN PEANUT RESEARCH AND EDUCATION SOCIETY Ballroom, Omni Hotel Norfolk, Virginia July 10, 1992

The meeting was called to order at 8:30 a.m. by President Charles Simpson. The following items of business were conducted:

1. President's Report - Charles Simpson

2. The following awards were presented and reports made. Detailed reports are presented in the PROCEEDINGS.

a. NPC Research and Education Award - Leland Tripp

b. Bailey Award - Tom Stalker

c. Graduate Student Competition (Joe Sugg Award) - Hassan Melouk

d. DowElanco Awards for Research and Education - Gene Sullivan

e. Coyt T. Wilson Distinguished Service Award - Charles Simpson

f. Fellows - Morris Porter

3. The following reports were made, accepted, and approved by the membership. Detailed reports are presented in the PROCEEDINGS.

a. Executive Officer Report and Reading of Minutes of Previous Meeting - Ron Sholar

b. Ad Hoc Committee Reports

1) Annual Meeting - George Alston

President Simpson took a show of hands to determine the interest in changing the annual meeting dates from a) Tuesday through Friday to b) Wednesday through Saturday. The vote failed to reach the 700..b favorable vote that the Board of Directors had determined would be required to proceed with polling the entire membership on making the change. President Simpson declared the issue of changing the meeting dates as dead.

2) New Book - Tom Stalker

79 3) Changes to By-Laws - Charles Simpson

Dr. Simpson explained the need to make changes in Article VIII, Section 2 of the By-Laws. This change was necessitated by the resignation of one Board member and the addition of two state employee representatives on the Board. A copy of the proposed change was sent to Board members more than 30 days in advance of the Board meeting. The Board approved the following change:

Old-(beginning at the colon after •tonows• in Line 3. Page 152. 1991 APRES PROCEEDINGS): •e, 1972; d and f(1), 1973; and f(2) and f(3), 1974..

Change: •d(VC area). e and f(2), 1992; d(SE area) and f(3), 1993; and d(SW area) and f(1), 1994:

c. Nominating Committee - Tom Whitaker

d. Finance Committee - Olin Smith

e. Public Relations Committee - Dan Gorbet

f. Peanut Quality Committee - Tim Sanders

g. Site Selection Committee - Scott Wright

h. Publication and Editorial Committee - Mike Schubert

i. Program Committee - Walt Mozingo

4. Dr. Simpson turned the meeting over to the new President, Walt Mozingo of Virginia, who then adjourned the meeting.

80 FINANCE COMMITTEE REPORT

The Finance Committee met at 4:00 p.m. on July 7, 1992, at Norfolk, Virginia. Committee members present were Mark Braxton, Terry Coffelt, W. C. Odle, Ron Sholar (ex-officio), and Olin Smith. Others present inCtuded Charles Simpson, Walton Mozingo, Harold Pattee, Clifton Stacy, and Fred Cox.

The Committee received and approved the financial report presented by Executive Officer J. R. Sholar. Society income for the year totalled to $85,343, about $20,000 over the 1991-92 budget. Principal factors for the increase were: 1) very generous contributions by industry supporters and 2) increase in registration fees ($55 vs. $30) that was effected this year.

The June 30, 1992, assets totalled $140,639.68, a $19,000 increase over the June 30, 1991, balance of $121,946. Assets include $85,030 in savings, $31 ,000 checking, and $24,600 book inventory. The checking account balance will be reduced measureably with payment of expenses related to the annual meeting.

The Committee recommended that the Publication and Editorial Committee develop a special effort on book sales (PEANUT SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY) to reduce inventory (1,070 books) prior to publication of the new book targeted for publication in 1995.

The financial report from Harold Pattee, Editor of PEANUT SCIENCE, was reviewed with proposed 1992-93 receipts of $26, 190 and expenditures totalling $25,550.

The Committee discussed a total APRES budget for fiscal year 1992-93. Receipts were estimated at $75,650 with expenditures totalling $75,364, leaving a reserve of $285. A motion was made and passed to recommend this budget for adoption. A copy of the budget will be published in the PROCEEDINGS.

The meeting adjourned at 5:30 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

0. D. Smith, Chair

81 AMERICAN PEANUT RESEARCH AND EDUCATION SOCIETY BUDGET 1992-93

RECEIPTS

Annual Meeting Registration $16,500 Membership 16,000 Special Contributions (host state) 18,000 Differential Postage Assessment 2,000 Peanut Science & Technology 1,000 Quality Methods book 50 Proceedings and Reprint Sales 100 Peanut Science Page Charges & Reprints 17,000 Interest 5.000 TOTAL RECEIPTS $75,650

EXPENDITURES

Annual Meeting $24,500 Membership CAST 1,400 Office Supplies 1,500 Secretarial Services 10,815 Postage 2,000 Travel - Officers 1,200 Legal Fees 300 Proceedings - Printing & Reprints 3,500 Peanut Science 25,550 Peanut Science and Technology 100 Peanut Research 2,000 Quality Methods 100 Bank charges 150 Miscellaneous 250 On-line Computer Search Capability 2,000 Reserve 285 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $75,650

Excess Receipts over Expenditures 0

82 AMERICAN PEANUT RESEARCH AND EDUCATION SOCIETY BALANCE SHEET FOR FY 1991 ·92

ASSETS June 301 1992 June 301 1991

Petty Cash Fund $ 345.84 $ 200.39

Cash in Checking Account 30,673.39 14,162.68

Certificate of Deposit #1 18,468.41 17,348.04

Certificate of Deposit #2 11,853.13 11,218.54

Certificate of Deposit #3 11,106.64 10,496.19

Certificate of Deposit #4 28,882.74 27,062.11

Certificate of Deposit #5 10,795.21 10,388.93

Money Market Account 2,662.25 2,542.13

Savings Account (Wallace Bailey) 1,261.91 1,205.06

Inventory of Books 241590.16 271322.40

TOTAL ASSETS $140,639.68 $121,946.47

LIABILITIES

None 0.00 0.00

FUND BALANCE $140,639.68 $121,946.47

TOTAL LIABILITIES AND FUND BALANCE $140,639.68 $121,946.47

83 AMERICAN PEANUT RESEARCH AND EDUCATION SOCIETY STATEMENT OF ACTIVITY FOR YEAR ENDING

Receipts June 30. 1992 June 30. 1991 Registration $15,015.00 $10,850.00 Membership 14,984.00 16,843.00 Special Contributions 28,827.00 8,246.17 Differential Postage 2,193.00 2,279.50 Ladies Activities 1,918.00 659.00 Peanut Science and Technology 1,475.50 1,063.25 Quality Methods 55.00 30.00 Proceedings & Reprint Sales 143.00 2,560.99 Peanut Science Page Charges & Reprints 15,369.50 10,882.25 Checking Account Interest 593.02 663.33 Savings Account Interest~. Bailey) 56.31 69.65 Money Market Account Interest 120.12 323.75 Certificate of Deposit #1 Interest 1,120.37 1,274.60 Certificate of Deposit #2 Interest 634.59 806.74 Certificate of Deposit #3 Interest 610.45 773.51 Certificate of Deposit #4 New & Interest 1,820.63 2,017.59 Certificate of Deposit #5 New & Interest 406.28 10,388.93 Transfer from Money Market to Checking Acct 0.00 4.000.00 TOTAL RECEIPTS $85,341.77 $73,732.26

Expenditures Annual Meeting $19,155.52 $ 8,789.12 Membership 30.00 679.00 Office Supplies 1,527.61 786.05 Secretarial Services 10,340.00 9,914.08 Postage 1,558.74 3,155.57 (minus petty cash fund balance) (0.00) (200.39) Travel - Officers 365.85 1,207.16 Corporation Registration 55.00 55.00 Legal Fees 270.00 215.00 Sales Tax 35.12 35.45 Proceedings 3,265.12 5,994.08 Peanut Science 23,571.93 14,208.27 Peanut Science and Technology 118.18 51.36 Peanut Research 3,638.24 1,987.03 Quality Methods 0.00 155.00 Bank Charges 131.00 136.75 Money Market Account 0.00 4,000.00 Certificates of Deposit 0.00 10,000.00 Miscellaneous 0.00 193.00 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $64,062.31 $61,361.53

EXCESS RECEIPTS OVER EXPENDITURES $21,279.46 $12,370.73

Cash in Checking Account: June 30, 1992 - $30,673.39 June 30, 1991 - $14,162.68 June 30, 1990 - $13,587.41 84 PEANUT SCIENCE BUDGET 1992-93

Income Page and reprint charges $17,000.00 Foreign mailings 1,200.00 APRES member subscriptions (505 x $13.00) 6,565.00 Library subscriptions (95 x $15.00) 1.425.00 TOTAL INCOME $26,190.00

Expenditures Printing and reprint costs $16,200.00 Editorial assistance (750 hours) 6,600.00 Miscellaneous 500.00 Computer usage 200.00 Office supplies 100.00 Postage, domestic 750.00 Postage, foreign 1.200.00 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $25,550.00

PEANUT SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY . SALES REPORT AND INVENTORY ADJUSTMENT 1991-92

Books Sold Remaining Inventory Beginning Inventory 1190 1st Quarter 19 1171 2nd Quarter 54 1117 3rd Quarter 13 1104 4th Quarter 33 1071 TOTAL 119

119 books sold x $22.96 = $2,732.24 decrease in value of book inventory.

1071 remaining books x $22.96 (book value) = $24,590.16 total value of remaining book inventory.

Fiscal Year Books Sold 1985-86 102 1986-87 77 1987-88 204 1988-89 136 1989-90 112 1990-91 70 1991-92 119

85 PUBLIC RELATIONS COMMITTEE REPORT

The Public Relations Committee met Tuesday, July 7, 1992, at the Omni Hotel in Norfolk, Virginia. We had seven members present and one guest. As there was no unfinished business known, we considered the following:

1. We recommend a letter be written by the Public Relations Committee and the Publications & Editorial Committee, to be mailed or presented to the peanut shelling/growing/manufacturing industries, leading politicians, certain newspapers, and farm magazines for the purpose of educating our industry in what we are doing and our vision for APRES. Certainly, all we do should support the whole industry. The paper could be combined with the brochure ,. that is to be revised or could be independent for mailing to or perhaps, read to convention groups, etc. The length should be no more than one page.

2. We recommend that APRES members who receive awards supply a picture that would accompany the summary of their award. This information will be available to be published in local hometown newspapers, university papers, national peanut publications, pertinent farm magazines, etc., for the purpose of making the industry aware of APRES.

3. Two deaths have been reported to date. Mr. Eli Goldin, a pioneer and leader of peanut breeding and research in Israel, passed away September 6, 1991, at the age of 84. Dr. Esau (Sam) Ahmed, a leader in peanut research and education in the area of food science and technology passed away on July 22, 1991. Resolutions honoring their lives and contributions to the peanut industry follow.

4. We recommend a member be appointed to the Public Relations Committee who resides in the forthcoming meeting state. This member would be responsible for snapshots with captions for same about the meeting, to be displayed the following year.

Respectfully submitted,

Doyle Welch, Chair

RESOLUTIONS

Whereas Mr. Eli Goldin was a pioneer and leader in the area of peanut breeding and research in Israel for 50 years, and

Whereas Mr. Goldin worked diligently to improve peanut production in underdeveloped countries in Africa and Asia, and

86 Whereas Mr. Goldin developed the Shulamit cultivar which has been the leading peanut cultivar in Israel for the past 25 years, and

Whereas Mr. Goldin made many significant contributions to the world's peanut industry, and

Whereas Mr. Goldin passed away on September 6, 1991,

It is resolved that Mr. Go/din's life and contributions to the peanut industry are honored by the American Peanut Research and Education Society.

Whereas Dr. Esau Mahmoud (Sam) Ahmed. Professor of Food Science and Human Nutrition at the University of Florida, was a leader in peanut research and education in the area of food science and technology for over 20 years, with more than 200 publications and 40 graduate students, and

Whereas Dr. Ahmed made major contributions in the area of product development and quality factors of peanuts, and

Whereas Dr. Ahmed was very active in several professional societies, including APRES,and .

Whereas Sam was a long-time active members of APRES, serving in many capacities, especially in the area of publications (including a book chapter), meeting presentations and related contributions, the quality committee and other functions related to his expertise, and

Whereas Sam made significant contributions to the functions and actions of the APRES Quality Committee, editing the Quality Methods Manual, coordinating a quality symposium, authoring a peanut quality bulletin, of which 4000 copies were distributed, and

Whereas Dr. Sam Ahmed passed away in Williston, Florida, on July 22, 1991,

Be it resolved that Dr. Ahmed's life and contributions to APRES and the peanut industry are honored by the American Peanut Research and Education Society.

87 PUBLICATION AND EDITORIAL COMMITTEE REPORT

The Publication and Editorial Committee met July 7, 1992, at Norfolk, Virginia Members present were Bill Branch, Richard S. Wilkes, Joe Domer, Marvin Beute, Austin Hagan, Tim Brenneman, and Mike Schubert. Harold Pattee, Tom Whitaker, Corley Holbrook, Doyle Welch, and Charles Simpson were also present.

The Committee received Harold Pattee's Editorial Committee Report. PEANUT SCIENCE operated in the black this year with an income of $25,255.03 and expenses of $23,319.45 resulting in a net profit of $1,935.58. There were 42 manuscripts submitted from July 1, 1991, to June 30, 1992. Of these, 18 articles (83 pages) and a 4-page index were printed in the July­ December 1991 issue and 16 articles (62 pages) were printed in the January­ June 1992 issue for a total of 34 papers published. Twenty-three articles are in review and nine articles have been accepted for the 1992-93 issues. The proposed budget for PEANUT SCIENCE for 1992-93 is $26,190 income, $25,550 expenses, with $640 net based on an estimated 149 pages at a $90 cost per page.

Retiring from the PEANUT SCIENCE Editorial Board after six years of service are Dallas L Hartzog, Production; R. Walton Mozingo, Multi-disciplinary topics and Production; and James H. Young, Agricultural Engineering. Replacements approved, pending acceptance by the nominees, are Ed Colburn, Extension Peanut Specialist, Texas A&M University, Production; and John Cundiff, USDA-AAS, Suffolk, Virginia, Agricultural Engineering. Nominations and approval of the third replacement will be done by telephone. The retiring editors will be publicly recognized at the annual business meeting.

Electronic submission of manuscripts was discussed. Two trial electronic submissions worked well. The Committee approved a proposal to invite voluntary electronic submissions to PEANUT SCIENCE. This may eventually lead to a formal policy for electronic submissions. Voluntary submissions should include both disk file and hard copies. Benefits would include making Mure page charge increases less likely, reducing printer-generated errors, and uniformity in appearance of tables.

The Committee discussed waiving page charges in PEANUT SCIENCE. On rare occasions governmental policies or currency exchange circumstances generate a request for waiving page charges for a paper from a foreign scientist. The Committee recommended that the Editor of PEANUT SCIENCE and Chair of Publication and Editorial Committee be authorized to waive page charges in exceptional situations.

Tom Whitaker reported on progress by the New Book Committee.

88 Corley Holbrook reported that things are going smoothly on PEANUT RESEARCH. Tom Stalker is stepping down as a contributing editor. The Committee will publicly recognize Tom for his contributions.

Doyle Welch, Public Relations Committee Chair, proposed that a brochure or letter be circulated to members, prospective members, growers, shellers, other industry groups, and political and government leaders letting them know what APRES is doing for the peanut industry. The Publication and Editorial Committee endorsed the need to revise the previous APRES brochure and agreed to work with the Public Relations Committee.

Respectfully submitted,

Mike Schubert, Chair

89 NOMINATING COMMITTEE REPORT

The 1992 APRES Nominating Committee met informally via telephone and personal visits in April of 1992. It was the consensus of the Committee to nominate the following individuals as representatives to the APRES Board of Directors:

President-Elect: Dallas Hartzog USDA Representative: Thomas Whitaker VC Area State Employee Representative: Charles Swann Shelling. Marketing. Storage lndustrv Representative: Doyle Welch .. Respedfully submitted,

Ron Henning, Chair Carroll Johnson Tom Whitaker Ron Weeks

FELLOWS COMMITTEE REPORT

Nominations were received by the Fellows Committee. The Fellows Committee recommended to the Board of Directors the following members for election to Fellowship in APRES:

Dr. .Hassan Melouk, Oklahoma Dr. Johnny Wynne, North Carolina Dr. Scott Wright, Virginia

All were found to be worthy of being elected as Society Fellows.

The APRES Board of Directors elected these three members to Fellowship and all were notified prior to the annual meeting.

Respedfully submitted,

Morris Porter, Chair

90 BIOGRAPHICAL SUMMARY OF FELLOWS RECIPIENTS

Dr. Hassan A. Melouk is a Research Plant Pathologist with the USDA­ ARS, and Professor (Adjunct) at Oklahoma State University. -He has been engaged in research on peanuts since 1976. He has authored or co-authored over 120 publications which span the subject areas of fundamental to applied research on the control of peanut diseases. He is presently a senior editor for a book entitled Peanut Health Management. This book is being developed for publication by the American Phytopathological Society.

He has conducted research on the nature, epidemiology, and control of diseases of peanut, with emphasis on germplasm evaluation and host-plant resistance to improve peanut production efficiency. Hassan has 1) developed effective procedures for evaluating the reaction of wild and cultivated peanut germplasm against important pathogens, such as leafspot fungi, peanut mottle virus, peanut stripe virus, Verticillium dahliae, and Sclerotinia minor, 2) identified disease resistant sources in peanut germplasm, and defined epidemiological parameters for evaluating levels of resistance; 3) investigated environmentally safe means for effective management of economically important peanut diseases; 4) advanced practical epidemiological concepts to assist geneticists and breeders in developing peanut cultivars with resistance to diseases; 5) studied modes of pathogen dissemination as influenced by different genotypes; and 6) investigated ways to eliminate pathogens from peanut seed. One of his more noted recent accomplishments is the release of the peanut cultivar 'Tamspan 90', resistant to Sclerotinia blight, in cooperation with Texas A & M University. He has served as a major advisor for several students (M.S. and Ph.D.) whose research activities involve solving problems related to peanut production.

Dr. Melouk served as President of APRES and has served on the Board of Directors. He has also served on a number of committees (Finance, Public Relations, Nominating, Bailey Award), ad hoc committees, and as an Associate Editor of PEANUT SCIENCE. Other professional Society activities include membership in the National Peanut Council and the American Phytopathological Society. Also, he interacts closely with commodity organizations in the Southwest for promoting the peanut industry.

Dr. F. Scott Wright is a Research Agricultural Engineer with the USDA­ ARS at the Tidewater Agricultural Experiment Station, Suffolk, Virginia, and an Adjunct Professor of Agricultural Engineering at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. He has been active in agricultural engineering research for 31 years. He is recognized as a leader in research and equipment development. He has improved harvesting procedures and developed methods to separate the peanut from the plant with minimal pod damage. In 1975 he and a co-worker published a method of determining peanut blanchability, and this method has now been accepted as the standard by the American Society

91 of Agricultural Engineers and is widely used in the peanut industry. Dr. Wright has had a major impad on the development and evaluation of peanut diggers, peanut combines, planting and tillage equipment, and irrigation systems. Recent investigations have focused on tillage techniques used in peanut production and irrigation pradices. He has authored or co-authored more than 120 refereed journal articles and abstracts.

Dr. Wright has contributed extensively to the American Peanut Research and Education Society, Inc., and its predecessor, the Peanut Improvement Working Group (PIWG). Dr. Wright has participated in 21 annual meetings of the Society. He presented 14 contributed papers and has served as a co­ author on an adcfrtional 19 papers. He has served as chairman or co-chairman .• of the Bailey Award Committee, Local Arrangements Committee, Site Seledion Committee, Technical Program Committee and a member of the Finance Committee for APRES. He has served as Associate Editor of PEANUT SCIENCE. Dr. Wright is an active participant in the Southeast Region and Virginia State Section of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers. He has served on several committees for the American Society of Agricultural Engineers.

One of Dr. Wright's most outstanding attributes is his cooperative spirit in working with others. There are many excellent programs within the peanut industry, the USDA-AAS and the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University that have received national and international recognition because of his major contributions.

Dr. Johnny C. Wynne is a Professor of Crop Science and Associate Dean and Diredor, North Carolina Agricultural Experiment Station, Raleigh, North Carolina. He has been involved with peanut improvement for more than 25 years. He has authored or co-authored more than 120 refereed journal articles. Much of. his professional efforts have been devoted to developing improved peanut cultivars with high yield. He was the primary developer of NC 6, the first insed-resistant cultivar released in the U.S.; NC SC and NC 10C, two cultivars resistant to Cylindrocladium black rot; and NC 7, NC 9 and NC-V11, three high- . yielding, large-seeded genotypes. His varieties are currently grown on more than 90% of the peanut acreage in North Carolina and Virginia and are the predominant large-seeded cultivars grown across the southern peanut belt. In addition, he has identified germplasm with resistance to many disease and insed pests and other lines with improved agronomic traits. He supplied the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics with ~heir base peanut collection, and these materials now comprise a large percentage of the advanced germplasm lines distributed from the institute.

Dr. Wynne has served as president of APRES, chairman of the Program and Technical Committees, as a member on the Board of Diredors, and .as chairman or a member of numerous other APRES committees. In 1980 he co-

92 organized a Plant Breeding Symposium. Johnny served as an associate editor for PEANUT SCIENCE for six years and was the chairman of the Peanut Crop Advisory Committee from 1981 to 1984. Dr. Wynne received the Bailey Award for his paper entitled "Use of accelerated generation increase programs in peanut breeding" in 1977.

At NCSU, Dr. Wynne has chaired 41 graduate committees and has served on numerous others. He has extensive international involvement in peanut research through the Peanut CRSP Program in Thailand and the Philippines and through other projects as a cooperator, consultant or invited speaker at many international conferences. He was the chairman of the Peanut CRSP Technical Advisory Committee and is currently on its Board of Directors.

Dr. Wynne has been a leader in the peanut and agricultural community in North Carolina, in the U.S., and internationally. He has endeavored to meet the needs of industry while establishing superior academic and research programs. His work has benefited the entire peanut industry through cultivar development, training, and service to state and national organizations.

93 Guidelines for

AMERICAN PEANUT RESEARCH AND EDUCATION SOCIETY FELLOW ELECTIONS

Fellows

Fellows are active members of the Society who have been nominated to receive the honor of fellowship by other active members, recommended by the Fellows Committee, and elected by the APRES Board of Directors. Up to three active members may be elected to fellowship each year.

Eligibility of Nominators

Nominations may be made by an active member of the Society except members of the Fellows Committee and the APRES Board of Directors. A member may nominate only one person for election to fellowship in any one year.

Eligibility of Nominees

Nominees must be active members of the Society at the time of their nomination and must have been active members for a total of at least five years.

The nominee should have made outstanding contributions in an area of specialization whether in research, extension or administration and whether in public, commercial or private service activities. Members of the Fellows Committee and APRES Board of Directors are ineligible for nomination.

Nomination Procedures

Preparation. Careful preparation of the nomination for a distinguished colleague based principally on the candidate's record of service will assure a fair evaluation by a responsible panel. The assistance of the nominee in supplying accurate information is permissible. The documentation should be brief and devoid of repetition. The identification of the nominee's contributions is the most important part of the nomination. The relative weight of the ~ categories of achievement and performance are given in the attached •format•.

Format. Organize the nomination in the order shown in the Format for ;... Fellow Nominations, and staple each copy once in the upper left corner. Each copy must contain (1) the nomination proper, and (2) one copy of the three supporting letters (minimum of three but not more than five). The copies are to be mailed to the chairman of the Fellows Committee.

94 Deadline. The deadline date for receipt of the nominations by the chairman shall be March 1 of each year.

Basis of Evaluation

A maximum of 10 points is allotted to the nominee's personal achievements and recognition. A maximum of 50 points is allotted to the nominee's achievements in his or her primary area of activity, i.e., research, extension, service to industry, or administration. A maximum of 1O points is also allotted to the nominee's achievements in secondary areas of activity. A maximum of 30 points is allotted to the nominee's service to the profession.

Processing of Nominations

The Fellows Committee shall evaluate the nominations, assign each nominee a score, and make recommendation regarding approval by April 1. The President of APRES shall mail the committee recommendations to the Board of Directors for election of Fellows, maximum of three (3), for that year. A simple majority of the Board of Directors must vote in favor of a nominee for election to fellowship. Persons elected to fellowship, and their nominators, are to be informed promptly. Unsuccessful nominations shall be returned to the nominators and may be resubmitted the following year.

Recognition

Fellows shall receive an appropriate framed certificate at the annual business meeting of APRES. The President shall announce the elected Fellows and present each a certificate. The members elected to fellowship shall be recognized by publishing a brief biographical sketch of each, including a photograph and summary of accomplishments, in the APRES PROCEEDINGS. The brief biographical sketch is to be prepared by the Fellows Committee.

Distribution of Guidelines

These guidelines and the format are to be published in the APRES PROCEEDINGS and again whenever changes are made. Nominations should be solicited by an announcement published in •peanut Research•.

95 Format for

AMERICAN PEANUT RESEARCH AND EDUCATION SOCIETY FELLOW NOMINATIONS

TITLE: Entitle the document •Nomination of for Election to Fellowship by the American Peanut Research and Education Society", inserting the name of the nominee in the blank.

NOMINEE: Include the name, date and place of birth, mail address (with zip code) and telephone number (with area code).

NOMINATOR: Include the typewritten name, signature, mail address (with zip code) and telephone number (with area code).

BASIS OF NOMINATION: Primary area: designate primary area as Research, Extension, Service to Industry, or Administration.

Secondary areas: include contributions in areas other than the nominee's primary area of activity in the appropriate sections of this nomination format.

QUALIFICATIONS OF NOMINEE: Complete parts I and Ill for all candidates and as many of II-A, -B, -C, and -D, as are applicable.

I. PERSONAL ACHIEVEMENTS AND RECOGNITION (10 points)

A. Degrees received: give field, date, and institution for each degree. B. Membership in professional and honorary academic societies. C. Honors and awards received since the baccalaureate degree. D. Employment give years, organizations and locations.

II. ACHIEVEMENT IN PRIMARY (50 points) AND SECONDARY (10 points) FIELDS OF ACTIVITY

A. Research

Significance and originality of basic and applied research contributions; scientific contribution to the peanut industry; evidence of excellence and creative reasoning and skill; number and quality of publications; quality and magnitude of editorial contributions. Attach a chronological list of publications.

96 B. Extension

Ability (a) to communicate ideas clearly, (b) to influence client attitudes, (c) to motivate change in client action. Evaluate the quality, number and effectiveness of publications for the audience intended. Attach a chronological list of publications.

C. Service to Industry

Development or improvement of programs, practices, and products. Significance, originality and acceptance by the public.

D. Administration or Business

Evidence of creativeness, relevance and effectiveness of administration of activities or business within or outside the USA.

Ill. SERVICE TO THE PROFESSION (30 points)

A. Service to APRES

1. Appointed positions (attach list). 2. Elected positions (attach list). 3. Other service to the Society (brief description).

Service to the Society and length of service as well as quality and significance of the type of service are all considered.

B. Service to the profession outside the Society

1. Advancement in the science, practice and status of peanut research, education or extension, resulting from administrative skill and effort (describe). 2. Initiation and execution of public relations activities promoting understanding and use of peanuts, peanut science and technology by various individuals and organized groups within and outside the USA (describe).

The various administrative skills and public relations actions outside the Society reflecting favorably upon the profession are considered here.

EVALUATION: Identify in this section, by brief reference to the appropriate materials in sections II and Ill, the combination of the contributions on which the nomination is based. The relevance of key items explaining why the nominee is especially well qualified for fellowship should be noted. However, brevity is

97 essential as the body of the nomination, excluding publication lists, should be confined to not more than eight (8) pages.

SUPPORTING LETTERS: A minimum of three (3) but not more than five (5) supporting letters are to be included for the nominee. Two of the three required supporting letters must be from adive members of the Society. The letters are solicited by, and are addressed to, the nominator, and should not be dated. Please urge those writing supporting letters not to repeat fadual information that will obviously be given by the nominator, but rather to evaluate the significance of the nominee's achievements. Attach one copy of each of the three letters to each of the six copies of the nomination. Members of the Fellows Committee, the APRES Board of Diredors, and the nominator are not eligible to write supporting letters.

98 BAILEY AWARD COMMITTEE REPORT

Thirteen papers were nominated for the Bailey Award at the 1991 APRES meeting held in San Antonio, Texas. Each of the thirteen papers were presented by the senior author who was a member of APRES. On August 5, 1991, the senior author of the nominated paper was notified of the nomination and an original manuscript based on the presentation was requested by January 7, 1992. Twelve of the thirteen nominees responded with a manuscript. Submitted manuscripts were judged by four of the six Bailey Award Committee members (two committee members' papers were nominated and manuscripts were submitted). Papers were judged on appropriateness, originality, clarity, and scientific excellence. On April 15, 1992, the Committee reached a consensus on the Bailey Award winner and the president, executive officer, and president-elect were notified.

The 1992 recipient of the Bailey Award is ·variability associated with testing farmers stock peanuts for aflatoxin• by T. B. Whitaker, F. E. Dowell, W. M. Hagler, F. G. Giesbrecht and J. Wu, USDA/AAS, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC; USDA/ARS, National Peanut Research Laboratory, Dawson, GA; Mycotoxin Laboratory, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC; Dept. of Statistics, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC; AMS Statistics Branch, USDA, Washington, DC.

Secondly, the Committee suggests that the criteria for the Bailey Award be published annually in the PROCEEDINGS and/or Peanut News. The. guidelines are currently in several issues of the PROCEEDINGS because changes have been made over the years, and several problems have arisen (for example, papers presented at annual meetings with different authorship than manuscripts judged); thus, we suggest that the president formally ask the Bailey Award Committee to synthesize all guidelines, policies and suggested changes and present the information to the Board of Directors at the 1993 APR ES meetings and publish the information thereafter.

Respectfully submitted,

H. T. Stalker, Chair T. A. Lee K. J. Boote H. A. Melouk J. I. Davidson C. W. Swann

99 NOMINEES FOR BAILEY AWARD 1992

1. Restriction fragment length polymorphism evaluation of six peanut species within the Arachis section. 0.G. Paik-Ro, R.L Smith and D.A. Knauft.

2. Resistance to Meliodogyne arenaria in Arachis hypogaea. C.C. Holbrook, J.P. Noe and N.A. Minton.

3. Spectral reflectance characteristics of undamaged and damaged peanut kernels. F.E. Dowell.

4. Single leaf carbon exchange and canopy radiation use efficiency of four peanut cultivars. J.M. Bennett, L Ma, T.R. Sinclair and K.J. Boote.

5. Variability associated with testing farmers stock peanuts for aflatoxin. T.B. Whitaker, F.E. Dowell, W.M. Hagler, F.G. Giesbrecht and J. Wu.

6. Effect of calcium on germination of Florunner. Sunrunner, GK7, and Southern Runner. D.L Hartzog and J.F. Adams.

7. Peanut yield decline in the Southeast and economically feasible solutions. M.C. Lamb, J.I. Davidson, Jr. and C.L Butts.

8. Interactive effects of lesser cornstalk borers and Aspergillus incidence in peanut. K.L Bowen and T.P. Mack.

9. Do world peanut prices influence U. S. prices and production or vice versa? D.H. Carley and S.M. Fletcher.

10. Influence of Meloidogyne arenaria and Sclerotium rolfsii on performance of Florunner and Southern Runner cultivars in three leafspot control regimes. A.K. Culbreath, N.M. Minton and T.B. Brenneman.

11. Interaction of paraquat and other herbicides when used in peanuts. G. Wehtje, J.W. Wilcut and T.V. Hicks.

12. Effectiveness of fluazinam (ASC-66825), a new broad-spectrum fungicide, with chlorothalonil for control of both Sclerotinia blight and Cercospora leafspot of peanut. F.D. Smith, P.M. Phipps and R.J. Stipes.

Nominated but not submitted:

1. Chemical, chromatographic and sensory assessment of Canadian peanuts and extrusion processed peanut butter. D.J. Moore and Y. Kakuda

100 JOE SUGG GRADUATE STUDENT AWARD REPORT

Judges for the 1992 Graduate Student Competition were:

Dr. H. A. Melouk, Chair Dr. Tom Stalker Dr. John Wilcut Dr. David Knauft Mr. James Grichar

Six papers were presented in the session. The five judges scored the papers based on clarity of presentation, quality of visuaJ aides, originality and contribution to science, overaJI quality and clarity of abstract, and interaction with the audience. All students had done an excellent job presenting their research and the competition was keen.

The first place award went to M.J. Bell of the Department of Crop Science at the University of Guelph and Delhi Research Station, Ontario, Canada, for presenting a paper titled •Radiation Use Efficiency of Peanut in Southern 11 Ontario • The paper was co-authored by R.C. Roy and T.E. Michaels.

The second place award went to G.F. Chappell of the Department of Crop Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, for presenting a paper titled ·comparison of Field Resistance and the Effect of Peanut Growth Habit with Expression of Metabolic and Physiological Resistance of Sclerotinia minor. The paper was co-authored by M.K. Beute of the Department of Plant Pathology at North Carolina State University

Cash awards sponsored by the North Carolina Peanut Growers Association were presented to the winners. Mr. Norfleet Sugg of the North Carolina Peanut Growers Association made the presentations. The first place winner received a cash award of $200 and the second place winner received a cash award of $100.

Respectfully submitted,

H. A. Melouk, Chair

101 COYT T. WILSON DISTINGUISHED SERVICE AWARD REPORT

The Coyt T. Wilson Distinguished Service Award was established to recognize those persons within the American Peanut Research and Education Society who have provided outstanding service to the Society for a long period of time and deserve special recognition.

The Award was named to pay tribute to one of our founding members who spent many years and much time in nurturing our young Society so it could become what it is today-Dr. Coyt T. Wilson.

The Coyt T. Wilson Distinguished Service Award Committee met and selected Dr. Harold E. Pattee as the recipient of the 1992 award. Dr. Pattee has been a member of the Society or the Peanut Working Group for 28 years, and has attended 27 meetings. In 1977, Dr. Pattee received the Golden Peanut Research Award and in 1983 he became a Fellow of APRES. Dr. Pattee's main contribution to the Society has been as editor of PEANUT SCIENCE from 1976 to present, during which time PEANUT SCIENCE has become an internationally recognized publication.

In order to further enhance the prestige of this new award and increase awareness of it, the Committee shall undertake to publicize both the award and the man whom it honors prior to the next deadline for nominations.

Respectfully submitted,

David Dougherty, Chair

102 BIOGRAPHICAL SUMMARY OF COYT T. WILSON DISTINGUISHED SERVICE AWARD RECEIPIENT

Dr. Harold E. Pattee is a research chemist for the U.S. Department of Agriculture and Professor of Botany, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina. He has been a leader in the area of quality and flavor composition of peanuts. Dr. Pattee identified •off-flavor" components in seeds which then led to definition of volatile profiles for chemical analyses. His research led to the development of a simple, rapid, reproducible test for evaluating farmers stock peanuts for high-temperature curing off-flavors and freeze-damage. Cooperative work to study the inheritance of peanut flavor promises to lead to improved genotypes throughout the market place. As part of a research team he developed a physiological maturity index for controlling variation in maturity across time. He is an expert in embryology and has set standards for comparative reproductive development of cultivated and wild species and their interspecific hybrids. In summary, he has served the peanut industry by developing new technologies and applying theories to solve practical problems during the past 30 years.

Since 1976, Dr. Pattee has served as the editor of PEANUT SCIENCE and, largely due to his efforts, the journal is recognized as a high quality outlet for peanut scientific information. He was chairman of the ad-hoc committee to establish the association •APREA• as a non-profit society; this also led to a change in the name to American Peanut Research and Education Society. Harold was senior ed_itor for PEANUT SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY and will edit a forthcoming update of the book. In 1989 he co-chaired a symposium on peanut quality at the APRES meetings, which addressed critical needs of the peanut industry, and distributed the resulting bulletin to nearly 4000 individuals. Dr. Pattee has served on numerous committees, was recognized as Fellow of the organization in 1983, received the Golden Peanut Research Award from the National Peanut Council, and has been a strong contributor of peanut research from the early days of the society to the present when APRES is an internationally recognized society.

103 Guidelines for

AMERICAN PEANUT RESEARCH AND EDUCATION SOCIETY COYT T. WILSON DISTINGUISHED SERVICE AWARD

The Coyt T. Wilson Distinguished Service Award will recognize an individual who has contributed two or more years of distinguished service to the American Peanut Research and Education Society. It will be given annually in honor of Dr. Coyt T. Wilson who contributed freely of his time and service to this organization in its formative years. He was a leader and advisor until his retirement in 1976.

Eligibility of Nominators

Nominations may be made by an active member of the Society except members of the Award Committee and the Board of Directors. However, the nomination must be endorsed by a member of the Board of Directors. A nominator may make only one nomination each year and a member of the Board of Directors may endorse only one nomination each year.

Eligibility of Nominees

Nominees must be active members of the Society and must have been active for at least five years. The nominee must have given of their time freely and contributed· distinguished service for two or more years to the Society in the area of committee appointments, officer duties, editorial boards, or special assignments. Members of the Award Committee are ineligible for nomination.

Nomination Procedures

Preparation. Careful preparation of the nomination based on the candidate's service to the Soceity is critical. The nominee may assist in order to assure the accuracy of the information needed. The documentation should be brief and devoid of repetition.

Format. TITLE: Entitle .the document •Nomination of ------for the Coyt T. Wilson Distinguished Service Award presented by the American Peanut Research and Education Society-. (Insert the name of the nominee in the blank). .;

NOMINEE: Include the name, date and place of birth, mail address (with zip code) and telephone number (with area code).

NOMINATOR AND ENDORSER: Include the typewritten names, signatures, mail addresses (with zip codes) and telephone numbers (with area codes).

104 SERVICE AREA: Designate area as Committee Appointments, Officer Duties, Editorial Boards, or Special Assignments. (List in chronological order by year of appointment.)

Qualifications of Nominee

I. Personal Achievements and Recognition: A. Education and degrees received: Give field, date and institution. B. Membership in professional organizations C. Honors and awards D. Employment: Give years, locations and organizations

II. Service to the Society: A. Number of years membership in APRES B. Number of APRES annual meetings attended C. List all appointed or elected positions held D. Basis for nomination E. Significance of service including changes which took place in the Society as a result of this work and date it occurred.

Ill. Supporting letters: Two supporting letters should be included with the nomination. These letters should be from Society members who worked with the nominee in the service rendered to the Society or is familiar with this service. The letters are solicited by and are addressed to the nominator. Members of the Award Committee and the nominator are not eligible to write supporting letters.

Award and Presentation

The award shall be a bronze and wood plaque purchased by the Society and presented at its annual business meeting.

105 DOWELANCO AWARDS COMMITTEE REPORT

The DowElanco Awards Committee was charged with setting up the criteria for the DowElanco Award for Research and the DowElanco Award for Extension. The Committee developed the description for the award, established eligibility criteria for each award, and developed nomination procedures and nomination forms for each award. The awards were named the DowElanco Award for Excellence in Research and the DowElanco Award for Excellence in Extension. The criteria for the awards and a nomination form were printed in Peanut Research.

The Committee received the nominations for 1992 and selected Dr. Rodrigo Rodriguez-Kahana of Auburn University to receive the research award and Dr. James Ronald Sholar of Oklahoma State University to receive the extension award. The awards were presented at the 24th annual meeting in Norfolk, Virginia

Respectfully submitted,

G.A. Sullivan, Chair P. Blankenship D. Hale K. Jackson D. Knauft T.A. Lee J.C. Wynne

BIOGRAPHICAL SUMMARY OF DOWELANCO AWARD FOR EXCELLENCE IN EXTENSION

Dr. James Ronald Sholar holds a B.S. degree from the University of Tennessee and M.S. and Ph.D. degrees from Oklahoma State University. He has authored more than 300 popular articles, extension publications, fact sheets, circulars, abstracts and refereed journal articles. As an Extension Crops Specialist at Oklahoma State University and as Executive Officer of the American Peanut Research and Education Society, Ron's achievements and contributions have led to significant improvements in the entire U.S. peanut industry. He has provided superior leadership and guidance to producer groups in the discovery and implementation of new technology and peanut management strategies which has increased quality and profits while at the same time protecting the environment.

Ron has successfully utilized novel and innovative demonstration programs and educational materials to help the peanut industry make informed decisions relating to producing and marketing a quality product. He has provided

106 leadership to the industry by serving on state boards, regional and national committees and task forces and participating in international assignments with the National Peanut Council of America and other agencies. He has served on the Board of Directors of the Council on Agricultural Science and Technology (CAST) and has participated in educational activities in England, the Netherlands, Switzerland, and China. Recognition of Ron's excellence in peanut industry leadership at both the national and international levels is evidenced by virtue of his continuing role (since 1983) as Executive Officer of the American Peanut Research and Education Society. Dr. Sholar's work has and continues to benefit the total peanut industry in the U.S. and internationally.

BIOGRAPHICAL SUMMARY OF DOWELANCO AWARD FOR EXCELLENCE IN RESEARCH

Dr. Rod Rodriguez-Kabana holds B.S., M.S., and Ph.D. degrees from Louisiana State University. He has authored more than 160 refereed journal articles, a myriad of abstracts and proceedings, and several book chapters on soil microbiology and ecology, and nematode ecology and control. As a faculty member at Auburn University, Rod has made amazing contributions to the peanut industry in the areas of biology and biological, chemical, and cultural control of plant parasitic nematodes and other soilborne pathogens of peanuts and crops used in rotation with peanuts. His work on integration of crop rotation with use of nematicides has been of benefit to all peanut growers in the U.S. His work in the area of biological control is world-renowned. Rod's work in the alternative nematode control methods is at the cutting edge of research in the area of environmentally sound production agriculture.

This distinguished scientist has received numerous prestigious awards commemorating his accomplishments and contributions. These include the Auburn University Director's Senior Research Award, the Auburn University Distinguished Graduate Faculty Lecturer award, the Society of Nematologists' CIBA-GEIGY award, the Organization of Nematologists of Tropical America Rhone-Poulenc award, Fellow of the Society of Nematologists, and Fellow of the American Phytopathological Society. Most recently Dr. Rodriguez-Kabana has been named as a Fulbright Scholar.

107 Guidelines for

DOWELANCO AWARDS FOR EXCELLENCE IN RESEARCH AND EXTENSION

I. DowElanco Award for Excellence in Research

The award will recognize an individual or team for excellence in research. The award may recognize an individual (team) for career performance or for an outstanding current research achievement of significant benefit to the peanut industry. One award will be given each year provided worthy nominees are nominated. The recipient will receive an appropriately engraved plaque and a $1,000 cash award. In the event of team winners, one plaque will be presented to the team leader and other team members will receive framed certificates. The cash award will be divided equally among team members.

Eligibility of Nominees

Nominees must be active members of the American Peanut Research and Education Society and must have been active members for the past five years. The nominee or team must have made outstanding contributions to the peanut industry through research projects. Members of the DowElanco Awards Committee are ineligible for the award while serving on the committee.

II. DowElanco Award for Excellence in &l.ension

The award will recognize an individual or team for excellence in educational programs. The award may recognize an individual (team) for career performance or for an outstanding current educational achievement of significant benefit to the peanut industry. One award will be given each year provided worthy nominees are nominated. The recipient will receive an appropriately engraved plaque and a $1,000 cash award. In the event of team winners, one plaque will be presented to the team leader and other team members will receive framed certificates. The cash award will be divided equally among team members.

Eligibility of Nominees

Nominees must be adive members of the American Peanut Research and Education Society and must have been active members for the past five years. The nominee or team must have made outstanding contributions to the peanut industry through education programs. Members of the DowElanco Awards Committee are not eligible for the award while serving on the committee.

108 Eligibility of nominators, nomination procedures, and the DowElanco Awards Committee are identical for the two awards and are described below:

Eligibility of Nominators

Nominators must be active members of the American Peanut Research and Education Society. Members of the DowElanco Awards Committee are not eligible to make nominations while serving on the committee. A nominator may make only one nomination each year.

Nomination Procedures

Nominations will be made on the Nomination Form for DowElanco Awards. Forms are available from the Executive Officer of APRES. A nominator's submittal letter summarizing the significant professional achievements and their impact on the peanut industry may be submitted with the nomination. Three supporting letters must be submitted with the nomination. Supporting letters may be no more than one page in length. Nominations must be postmarked no later than March 1 and mailed to the committee chair.

DowElanco Awards Committee

The APRES President is responsible for appointing the committee. The committee will consist of seven members with one member representing the sponsor. After the initial appointments, the President will appoint two new members each year to serve a term of three years. If a sponsor representative serves on the awar:ds committee, the sponsor representative will not be eligible to serve as chair of the committee.

109 NOMINATION FORM FOR DOWELANCO AWARDS

General Instructions: Listed below is the information to be included in the nomination for individuals or teams for the DowElanco Award. Ensure that all information is included. Complete Section VI, Professional Achievements, on the back of this form. Attach additional sheets as required. ******************************************************************* Indicate the award for which this nomination is being submitted. Date nomination submitted:

DowElanco Award for Excellence in Extension

DowElanco Award for Excellence in Research ******************************************************************* I. Nominee(s): For a team nomination, list the requested information on all team members on a separate sheet.

Nominee

Address

Title

II. Nominator:

Name ______Signature ______

Address Title ------Tel No. ------Ill. Education: (include schools, college, universities, dates attended and dgrees granted).

IV. Career: (state the positions held by listing present position first, titles, places of employment and dates of employment).

110 V. Honors and Awards: (received during professional career).

VI. Professional Achievements: (Describe achievement in which the nominee has made significant contributions to the peanut industry).

VII. Significance: (A iighr summary and evaluation of the nominee's most significant contributions and their impact on the peanut industry. This material should be suitable for a news release.

111 PEANUT QUALITY COMMITTEE REPORT

The Peanut Quality Committee discussed the interests, focus, and direction of the Peanut Quality Committee-or what the committee is about. The purpose of the Peanut Quality Committee is to promote quality improvement in the industry.

The Committee discussed three items of business:

1. Need to prepare additional Quality Methods as originally planned. Dr. Sam Ahmed had much of the material in Florida at the time of his death. The discussion focused on the need for new methods such as hull scrape, alcohol meter, and basic chemistry. The editor of Quality Methods will develop a list of topics and individuals will be solicited to write the new methods.

2. The Committee heard a presentation by Gordon Patterson of Hershey. Hershey is moving forward with quality improvement in all phases of their operation.

3. The Peanut Quality Committee discussed the issue of early maturing varieties. Olin Smith, Dan Gorbet, and Terry Coffelt led the discussion. The focus of the discussion was on whether these are early maturing or simply early yielding varieties and the quality implication of this. This discussion was joined by many participants.

The Peanut Quality Committee recommends that some direction be given to the chair of the Peanut Quality Committee as there is no consistent direction for the Committee.

Respectfully submitted,

Tim Sanders, Chair

112 PROGRAM COMMITTEE REPORT

The 24th annual meeting of the American Peanut Research and Education Society was held at the Omni International Hotel in Norfolk, Virginia, on July 7- 10, 1992. The working committees were chaired by Mrs. Joyce Wright (Spouses Program), Mr. Bill Birdsong and Dr. Scott Wright (Local Arrangements) and Dr. Terry Coffelt (Technical Program). The complete listing of all committee members is included in the program section of these PROCEEDINGS.

A total of 100 papers were presented. These included 67 volunteer papers, 11 poster papers, 6 graduate student papers judged for the Joe Sugg Award, and 2 symposia where 16 presentations were made.

Tremendous industry support was obtained for the 1992 meeting. Five major contributors (American Cyanamid Company, DowElanco, ISK Biotech Corporation, Rhone-Poulenc Ag Company, and Valent USA Corporation) supported four special events. An additional 47 organizations gave financial assistance and nine organizations supplied peanut products for the breaks. A complete listing of these organizations is in the program section of these PROCEEDINGS.

Approximately 545 people registered for the meetings. These included 300 members, 130 spouses and 85 children. The spouses tour included 48 people who visited historic Williamsburg, Virginia, had lunch at the George Washington Inn, and shopped at the famous Williamsburg Pottery Factory. The spouses hospitality suite was maintained from Tuesday noon until Thursday at 5:00 p.m.

A special congratulations to all 1992 APRES meeting committees for a super job.

Respectfully submitted,

R. Walton Mozingo, Chair

113 1992 PROGRAM

BOARD OF DIRECTORS 1991-1992

President ...... Charles E. Simpson President-Eled ...... R. Walton Mozingo Past President ...... Ronald J. Henning Executive Officer ...... J. Ron Sholar Administrative Advisor ...... Gale A. Buchanan State Employee Representatives: Southwest ...... Edwin Colburn Southeast ...... David Knauft Virginia-Carolina ...... Gene Sullivan USDA Representative ...... Timothy H. Sanders Industry Representatives: Produdion ...... T. Duane Bishop Shelling, Marketing, Storage ...... Freddie Mcintosh Manufadured Produds ...... John Haney National Peanut Council President ...... Kim Cutchins

PROGRAM COMMITTEE R. Walton Mozingo, Chairman

Local Arrangements Technical Program Spouses' Program F.S. Wright, Co-Chair TA. Coffelt, Chair Joyce Wright, Chair W.M. Birdsong, Co-Chair D.A. Herbert Dale Birdsong J. Ashley T.G. Isleib Shirley Coffelt R.L Brandenburg P.M. Phipps Claudia Cotton T.R. Cotton, Jr. N.L. Powell Julee Herbert D.E. Dougherty H.T. Stalker Sarah Heuberger G.W. Harrison C.W. Swann Judy Mozingo G.L Heuberger T.B. Whitaker Janet Phipps D.M. Porter J.H. Young Sylvia Porter J.J. Riddick Shirley Riddick R.C. Schools Faye Schools G.A. Sullivan Sharry Swann C.W. Swann Betty West F.R. Walls, Jr. J.H. West

114 PROGRAM HIGHLIGHTS

Tuesday, July 7

8:30-12:00 Peanut CAC Meeting ...... Brandon Room B 12:00- 8:00 APRES Registration ...... Grand Promenade 1:00- 5:00 Spouses' Registration ...... Riverview Room Spouses' Hospitality ...... Riverview Room 1:00- 2:00 New Book Committee ...... Brandon Room B Site Selection Committee ...... Montpelier Room Fellows Committee ...... Greenway Room· Coyt T. Wilson Award Committee ...... Brandon Room A 2:00- 3:00 Associate Editors, Peanut Science . . . . . Brandon Room B Public Relations Committee ...... Montpelier Room Meeting Survey Committee ...... Greenway Room Bailey Award Committee ...... Brandon Room A 2:00- 5:00 Peanut Growers Cooperative Marketing Association ...... Eppington Room 3:00- 4:00 Publications and Editorial Committee . . . Brandon Room B Nominating Committee ...... Montpelier Room Graduate Student Competition Ad-hoc Committee ...... Greenway Room Peanut Quality Committee ...... Brandon Room A 4:00- 6:00 Finance Committee ...... Montpelier Room Peanut Systems Workshop ...... Greenway Room 7:00-11:00 Board of Directors ...... Eppington Room 8:00-10:00 ICE CREAM SOCIAL - Rhone-Poulenc . . . Omni Ballroom

Wednesday, July 8

8:00- 4:00 APRES Registration ...... Grand Promenade Spouses' Registration ...... Riverview Room Spouses' Hospitality ...... Riverview Room 8:00- 5:00 Industry Exhibits ...... Stratford Hall 8:15- 9:30 General Session ...... York Hall 9:30- 4:30 Poster Session I ...... Stratford Hall 10:00-11:45 Breeding and Biotechnology ...... York Hall 10:00-11 :30 Production and Extension Technology . . . Claremont Room 10:00-11 :00 Entomology ...... Brandon Room 1:00- 3:00 Plant Pathology I ...... York Hall 1:30- 3:00 Weed Science I ...... Claremont Room 3:30- 5:00 Plant Pathology II ...... York Hall 3:30- 4:45 Weed Science II ...... Claremont Room 6:45-10:00 SPIRIT OF NORFOLK CRUISE - ISK Biotech . . Otter Berth (on Waterfront)

115 Thursday, July 9

8:00- 4:00 Spouses' Hospitality ...... Riverview Room 8:00- 3:00 Poster Session II . : ...... Stratford Hall Industry Exhibits ...... Stratford Hall 8:00-10:00 Breeding for Resistance ...... York Hall 8:00-10:00 Curing, Processing, and Utilization ...... Claremont Room 10:30-12:00 Graduate Student Papers ...... York Hall 10:30-11 :30 Economics ...... Claremont Room 1:00- 2:30 Production and Seed Technology ...... York Hall 1:00- 3:30 Economic Symposium ...... Brandon Room 1:00- 4:00 Fungicide Resistance Symposium ...... Claremont Room 6:30- 9:00 INTERNATIONAL DINNER - Valent, DowElanco, American Cyanamid ...... Omni Ballroom

Friday, July 10

7:30- 8:30 AWARDS BREAKFAST - American Cyanamid ...... Omni Ballroom 8:30-10:00 APRES Awards Ceremony and Business Meeting ...... Omni Ballroom

116 GENERAL SESSION

Wednesday, July 8

8:15- 9:30 a.m ...... York Hall

8: 15 Call to Order ...... APR ES President Charles Simpson

8:20 Invocation and Welcome : ...... Senator Mark L. Earley State Senator of the 14th District, Commonwealth of Virginia

8:30 Overview of the Virginia Agricultural Experiment Station ...... Dr. Gerald •skip• Jubb Assistant Director, Virginia Agric Experiment Stations

8:45 Introduction of Guest Speaker ...... Joe Barlow

8:50 Peanuts, Agriculture, and the Consumer . . Dr. Clinton Turner Commissioner, Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services

9:15 Announcements:

Technical Program ...... Terry Coffelt Local Arrangements ...... Bill Birdsong and Scott Wright

SPECIAL EVENTS

Tuesday, July 7

8:00-10:00 p.m. ICE CREAM SOCIAL ...... Omni Ballroom Rhone-Poulenc

Wednesday, July 8

6:45-10:00 p.m. SPIRIT OF NORFOLK CRUISE ...... Otter Berth ISK Biotech (on Waterfront)

Thursday, July 9

6:30- 9:00 p.m. INTERNATIONAL DINNER ...... Omni Ballroom Valent, DowElanco, American Cyanamid

117 TECHNICAL SESSIONS

Wednesday, July 8

Poster Session I • . . . . • . • . • • . . . • • . • • ...... • • • Stratford Hall 9:30 - 4:30 (authors present 3:30 - 4:30 p.m.)

Coordinator: T. 8. Whitaker, USDA-ARS, Raleigh, NC

P1 Trivial Movement and Dispersal Patterns of the Tobacco Thrips. A.J. Birdwhistell*, N.D. Stone, and D.A. Herbert, Jr., Dept. of Entomology, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA and Tidewater Agric. Exp. Stn., Suffolk, VA.

P2 Contamination of Thrips by Tomato Spotted Wilt Virus as Determined by ELISA. K.K. Kresta*, F.L. Mitchell, J.W. Smith, Jr., and V.K. Lowry, Texas Agric. Exp. Stn., Stephenville, TX and Dept. of Entomology, Texas A&M Univ., College Station, TX.

P3 Population Dynamics of Thrips Vectoring Tomato Spotted Wilt Virus in Texas Peanut Fields. F.L Mitchell*, J.W. Smith, Jr., and H.B. Highland, Texas Agric. Exp. Stn., Stephenville, TX and Dept. of Entomology, Texas A&M Univ., College Station, TX.

P4 Spotted Wilt Disease (TSWV) Incidence in Peanut Following Various Insecticide Application Regimes for Th rips Vector Control. J.W. Todd*, J.R. Chamberlin, A.K. Culbreath, and J.W. Demski, Dept. Entomology and Dept. Plant Pathology, University of Georgia, Tifton and Griffin, GA.

P5 Performance of Peanuts as Influenced by Seeding Rate and Planter. L. Wells*, J.R. Weeks, and G.R. Wehtje, Wiregrass Exp. Stn. and Dept. Agronomy and Soils, Auburn University, Auburn, AL.

PS An Overview of the Peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) Crop in Mexico. S. Sanchez-Dominguez*, Dept. de Fitotecnia, Chapingo, Mexico.

118 . Breeding and Biotechnology ...... •...... •... York Hall

Moderator: T. G. Isleib, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC

10:00 (7) Transformation of Peanuts (Arachis spp.) with a Peanut Stripe Virus Coat Protein (PStV-CP) Gene via Particle Bombardment and Polyethylene Glycol (PEG) Treatment of Protoplasts. Z.J. Li, J.W. Demski*, R.L. Jarret, R.N. Pittman, and K.B. Dunbar, Dept. of Plant Pathology, University of Georgia and USDA-AAS, Regional Plant Introduction Station, Griffin, GA.

10: 15 (8) Plant Regeneration from Short- and Long-term Embryogenic Cultures of Arachis hypogaea. P. Ozias-Akins* and W.F. Anderson, Dept. of Horticulture and USDA-AAS, University of

Georgia, Coastal Plain Exp. Stn. 1 Tifton, GA.

10:30 (9) Development of in vitro Regeneration Approaches for Valencia­ type Peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) Suitable for Agrobacterium­ mediated Transformation. M. Cheng*, D.C.H. Hsi, and G.C. Phillips, Dept. of Agronomy and Dept. of Horticulture, New Mexico State University and Agric. Sci. Center, Las Cruces and Los Lunas, NM.

10:45 (10) Culture of Peanut Zygotic Embryos for Transformation via Microprojectile Bombardment. J.A. Schnall and A.K. Weissinger*, Dept. of Crop Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC.

11 :00 (11) Response of Peanut Cultivars to Different Leafspot Spray Initiation Dates. D.W. Gorbet*, F.M. Shokes, and D.A. Knauft, North Florida Research and Education Centers and Agronomy Department, University of Florida, Marianna, Quincy, and Gainesville, FL.

11:15 (12) New High-yielding Israeli Peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) Cultivars. l.S. Wallerstein* and S. Kahn, Dept. of Industrial Crops, ARO­ Volcani Center, Bet Dagan, Israel.

11 :30 (13) Germline Transformation of Peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) Utilizing Electric Discharge Particle Acceleration (ACCELL™) Technology. G.S. Brar*, B.A. Cohen, and C.L. Vick, Agracetus, Inc., Middleton, WI.

11 :45 Discussion

119 Production and Extension Technology . . . • • • . . . • . Claremont Room

Moderator: D. M. P9rter, USDA-ARS, Suffolk, VA

10:00 (14) The Virginia Pesticide Use Survey for Peanut Production in 1990. P.M. Phipps*, D.A. Herbert, Jr., and C.W. Swann, Tidewater Agric. Exp. Stn., Virginia Tech, Suffolk, VA.

10:15 (15) Spray-Tank-Mix Compatibility of Manganese, Boron, and Fungicide I: Wet Chemistry. N.L. Powell*, Tidewater Agric. Exp. Stn., Virginia Tech, Suffolk, VA.

10:30 (16) Response of Virginia-type Peanut Cultivars to Chlorimuron. C.W. Swann*, Tidewater Agric. Exp. Stn., Virginia Tech, Suffolk, VA.

10:45 (17) Comparison of Fall and Pegging Zone Soil Test Results in Georgia S.C. Hodges* and G.J. Gascho, Ext. Agronomy Dept., University of Georgia, Rural Dev. Ctr., Tifton, GA.

11 :00 (18) Phosphorus and Potassium Fertilization on Peanuts. D.L. Hartzog* and J.F. Adams, Dept. of Agronomy, Auburn University, Headland, AL.

11: 15 Discussion

Entomology ••••.••••••.••••..... -•••••..••••. Brandon Room

Moderator: D. A. Herbert, Jr., Virginia Tech, Suffolk, VA

10:00 (20) Thrips Overwintering in Relation to Peanut Emergence in North Carolina. R.L. Brandenburg and J.D. Barbour*, Dept. of Entomology, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC.

10:15 (21) Tobacco Thrips Control Alternatives and Effects on Peanut Maturity and Yield. D.A. Herbert, Jr.* and C.W. Swann, Tidewater Agric. Exp. Stn., Virginia Tech, Suffolk, VA.

10:30 (22) Management of Thrips on Peanuts in Alabama Integrating Cultural and Insecticidal Control Practices. J.R. Weeks* and A.K. Hagan, Dept. of Entomology and Dept. of Plant Pathology, Auburn University, Auburn, AL.

10:45 (23) Wireworms as Pests of Peanuts in Georgia. S.L Brown*, Ext. Entomology Dept., University of Georgia, Rural Dev. Ctr., Tifton, GA.

11 :00 Discussion

120 Plant Pathology I . . • • • . • • ...... • • • . . . . • • • • . . • . • • • • York Hall

Moderator: F. D. Smith, USDA-ARS, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station, Otto, NC

1:00 (24) Detection of Peanut Stripe Virus in Peanut Seed Using the Polymerase Chain Reaction. J.L Sherwood*, R.E. Pennington, B.G. Cassidy, and R.S. Nelson, Dept. Plant Pathology, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK and The Samuel Roberts Nobel Foundation, Plant Biology Division, Ardmore, OK

1: 15 (25) Comparison of Hidden and Apparent Spotted Wilt Epidemics in Peanut. A.IC. Culbreath*, J.W. Todd, and J.W. Demski, Dept. of Plant Pathology and Dept. of Entomology, University of Georgia, Tifton and Griffin, GA.

1:30 (26) Variability in the Morphology and Germinability of Cercospora arachidicola Isolates. P.V. Subba Rao, J.L Renard, F. Waliyar, P. Subrahmanyam, D.H. Smith, D. McDonald and A. Mayeux*, ICRISAT, Andhra Pradesh, India, Niamey, Republic de Niger, Lilongwe, Malawi, and IRHO-CIRAD, Montpellier and Paris, France.

1:45 (27) Biological Control of Peanut Leafspot with a Mycoparasite. D.M. Porter* and R.A. Taber, USDA-AAS, Suffolk, VA and Consultant, Lavala, MD.

2:00 (28) Hairy Indigo for the Management of Meloidogyne arenaria in Peanut. D.G. Robertson, R. Rodriguez-Kahana*, and L. Wells, Dept. Plant Pathology, Auburn University, Auburn, AL.

2: 15 (29) Implications of Peanut Seed Infection with Sclerotinia minor on the Epidemiology of Sclerotinia Blight. H.A. Melouk*, K.E. Jackson, and J.D. Damicone, USDA-AAS and Dept. Plant Pathology, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK.

2:30 (30) Modification of Canopy Microclimate by Pruning to Control Sclerotinia Blight of Peanut. P.D. Brune* and J.E. Bailey, Dept. of Plant Pathology, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC.

2:45 (31) Development of Strategies for Integrated Management of Sclerotinia Blight of Peanut in Oklahoma K.E. Jackson*, H.A. Melouk, J.D. Damicone, and J.R. Sholar, Dept. Plant Pathology, USDA-AAS, and Dept. Agronomy, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK.

3:00 BREAK

121 Weed Science I • ...... Claremont Room

Moderator: W. C. Johnson, Ill, USDA-ARS, Tifton, GA

1:30 (32) Pursuit Tank Mixtures for Weed Control in Georgia Peanuts. S. Jones, J.W. Wilcut, J.S. Richburg, Ill*, and G. Wiley, Dept. of Agronomy, Coastal Plain Exp. Stn., University of Georgia and American Cyanamid Company, Tifton, GA.

1:45 (33) Pursuit and Cadre Mixtures for Weed Control in Georgia Peanuts. J.W. Wilcut* and J.S. Richburg, Ill, Dept. of Agronomy, University of Georgi~, Coastal Plain Exp. Stn., Tifton, GA.

2:00 (34) Cadre Systems for Weed Control in Georgia and North Carolina Peanuts. T.L Grey*, J.W. Wilcut, G.R. Wehtje, F.R. Walls, Jr., and G. Wiley, Dept. of Agronomy and Soils, Auburn University, Auburn, AL, Dept. of Agronomy, University of Georgia, Coastal Plain Exp. Stn., Tifton, GA, and American Cyanamid Company, Goldsboro, NC and Tifton, GA.

2:15 (35) Influence of Pursuit and Cadre on Nutsedge Development. D.T. Gooden* and M.B. Wixson, Clemson University, Pee Dee Research and Education Center, Florence, SC and American Cyanamid Company, Columbia, SC.

2:30 (36) Weed Control in Texas Peanuts with V-53482. W.J. Grichar* and P.S. Boyd-Robertson, Texas Agric. Exp. Stn., Yoakum, TX.

2:45 (37) DPX PE350 (STAPLE) and F6285 for Weed Control in Georgia Peanuts. J ..S. Richburg, Ill* and J.W. Wilcut, Dept. of Agronomy, University of Georgia, Coastal Plain Exp. Stn., Tifton, GA.

3:00 BREAK

Plant Pathology II • ...... • . . . • • . . . . . York Hall

Moderator: Marvin Beute, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC

3:30 (38) Weather Monitoring Device for the Development and Deployment of Disease Advisory Models. J.E. Bailey*, Dept. Plant Pathology, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC.

3:45 (39) On-Farm Evaluation of Folicur 3.6F for Peanut Disease Control. J.W. Bell*, K.A. Noegel, and R.D. Rudolph, Miles, Inc., Kansas City, MO.

122 4:00 (40) Effects of Irrigation on Yield and Rhizoctonia Limb Rot in Southern Runner Peanut at Two Harvest Dates. T.B. Brenneman*, Dept. Plant Pathology, University of Georgia, Coastal Plain Exp. Stn., Tifton, GA.

4:15 (41) Effectiveness of Four New Experimental Fungicides for Control of Southern Blight on Peanut in Texas. T.A. Lee, Jr.*, Texas Agric. Exp. Stn., Stephenville, TX.

4:30 (42) Disease Control and Yield Response of Peanut Treated with Moncut as Influenced by Crop Rotation. A.K. Hagan*, K.L. Bowen, and J.R. Weeks, Dept. Plant Pathology, Auburn University, Auburn, AL.

4:45 (43) Survival of Rhizoctonia solani AG-4 in Residual Peanut Shells in Soil. R.E. Baird, D.K. Bell*, B.G. Mullinix, Jr., and A.K. Culbreath, Southwest Purdue Agric. Program, Vincennes, IN and Dept. Plant Pathology, University of Georgia, Tifton, GA.

Weed Science II ...... Claremont Room

Moderator: D. T. Gooden, Clemson University, Florence, SC

3:30 (44) Interactions of Classic (Chlorimuron) with Other Pesticide Used in Peanuts. G.R. Wehtje* and J.W. Wilcut, Dept. Agronomy and Soils, Auburn University, Auburn, AL and University of Georgia, Coastal Plain Exp. Stn., Tifton, GA.

3:45 (45) FLAIR: A Potential New Cracking-Time Peanut Herbicide. D.L. Colvin* and W.C. Johnson, Ill, Agronomy Dept., University of Florida, Gainesville, FL and USDA-AAS, Coastal Plain Exp. Stn., Tifton, GA.

4:00 (46) Effects of Endothall Formulation, Rate, and Time of Application on Peanut. W.C. Johnson, Ill* and D.L Colvin, USDA-AAS, Coastal Plain Exp. Stn., Tifton, GA and Dept. of Agronomy, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.

4:15 (47) Interactions of Butyrac with Postemergence Graminicides. A.C. York*, J.W. Wilcut, and W.J. Grichar, Crop Science Dept., North Carolina State Univ., Raleigh, NC, Dept. of Agronomy, University of Georgia, Coastal Plain Exp. Stn., Tifton, GA, and Texas Agric. Station, P.O. Box 755, Texas A&M Univ., Yoakum, TX.

123 4:30 (48) Modeling Peanut Yield Losses Due to Weeds. J.C. Barbour* and D.C. Bridges, Agronomy Dept., University of Georgia, Georgia Exp. Stn., Griffin, GA.

4:45 Discussion

Thursday, July 9

Poster Session II ...... Stratford Hall 8:00 - 3:00 (authors present 2:00 - 3:00 p.m.) Coordinator: T. B. Whitaker, USDA-ARS, Raleigh, NC ,

P49 A Blot Assay for Detection of Peanut Arginase. S.Y. Chung* and Y.M. Bordelon, USDA, ARS, SRRC, New Orleans, LA.

P50 Viscosity Changes in the Hydration of Peanut Butter. T.O.M. Nakayama*, Dept. Food Sci. and Tech., University of Georgia, Georgia Exp. Stn., Griffin, GA.

P51 Phytoalexin Induction in Peanut Leaves. S.M. Basha*, Plant Biotechnology Lab., Florida A&M University, Tallahassee, FL

P52 Factors Affecting Adventitious Shoot Formation from Mature Leaf Explants of Arachis. vil/osulicarpa Hoehne. K.B. Dunbar* and R.N. Pittman, USDA, ARS, SRPIS, Griffin, GA.

P53 Spray-Tank-Mix Compatibility of Manganese, Boron, and Fungicide II: Visual Demonstration. D.C. Martens and N.L. Powell*, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg and Suffolk, VA.

Breeding for Resistance ••••••••..••••..••••••••••• York Hall

Moderator: 0. D. Smith, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX

8:00 (54) Evaluation of Advanced Georgia Breeding Lines for White Mold and Rhizoctonia Limb Rot Resistance. W.D. Branch* and T.B. Brenneman, Dept. Agronomy and Dept. Plant Pathology, University of Georgia, Coastal Plain Exp. Stn., Tifton, GA.

8:15 (55) Screening Peanut Genotypes for Resistance to Stem Rot Caused bySclerotium rolfsii. F.M. Shokes*, D.W. Gorbet, Z. Weber and D.A. Knauff, North Florida Res. and Educ. Center, Quincy and Marianna, FL and Poznan Agric. University, Poznan, Poland.

124 8:30 (56) Improvements in Screening Techniques for Resistance to Preharvest Aflatoxin Contamination and Some Potential Sources of Resistance. C.C. Holbrook*, D.M. Wilson, W.F. Anderson, M.E. Will, and M.E. Matherson, USDA-AAS and University of Georgia, Tifton, GA and University of Arizona, Somerton, AZ..

8:45 (57) Reaction of Arachis interspecific hybrid TP-135-4 to the northern root-knot nematode Meloidogyne hap/a. J.L Starr*, C.E. Simpson, and C.S. Katsar, Dept. Plant Pathology and Microbiology and Texas Agric. Exp. Stn., College Station and Stephenville, TX.

9:00 (58) Leafspot Resistance of Genotypes Derived from Crosses of Wild Arachis spp. and Virginia Peanut. B.B. Shew*, H.T. Stalker, and M.K. Beute, Dept. Crop Science and Dept. Plant Pathology, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC.

9:15 (59) Late Leafspot, TSWV, and Growth Traits Within Peanut Core Collection. W.F. Anderson* and C.C. Holbrook, USDA-AAS, Tifton, GA.

9:30 (60) Comparison of Components of Resistance to Late Leafspot in Peanut Measured in Different Environments. A.J. Chiyembekeza, D.A. Knauft*, and D.W. Gorbet, Dept. of Agronomy, University of Florida and North Florida Res. and Educ. Center, Gainesville and Marianna, FL

9:45 (61) The Interaction Between Maturity and Leafspot Resistance in Peanut. B.E. Friesen*, D.A. Knauft, and D.W. Gorbet, Dept. of Agronomy, University of Florida and North Florida Res. and Educ. Center, Gainesville and Marianna, FL

10:00 BREAK

Curing, Processing, and Utilization . • . . . . . • • . . • • Claremont Room

Moderator: J. H. Young, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC

8:00 (62) Antioxidative Activity in Oils Prepared from Peanut Kernels Subjected to Various Treatments and Roasting. R.Y.-Y. Chiou*, Dept. of Food Industry, National Chiayi Inst. Agric., Chiayi, Taiwan, Republic of China.

8:15 (63) Oil and Flavor Quality of TSWV Infected Seed. T.H. Sanders*, A.M. Schubert, and K.L. Bett, USDA-AAS, Raleigh, NC and New Orleans, LA and Texas Agric. Exp. Stn., Yoakum, TX.

125 8:30 (64) Response Surface Modeling of Extrusion Processed Full-fat Peanut and Sorghum Multi-mix Blend. J.C. Anderson*, X. Yan, and B. Singh, Dept. Food Science and Animal Industries, Alabama A&M University, Normal, AL.

8:45 (65) Relationship of Kernel Moisture Content to Aflatoxin Contamination in Florunner and Southern Runner Peanuts. J.W. Dorner*, R.J. Cole, and P.D. Blankenship, USDA-ARS, Dawson, GA.

9:00 (66) A Sensor to Measure Peanut Moisture Content While Curing. C.L. Butts*, USDA-ARS, Dawson, GA.

9: 15 (67) Peanut Quality Improvement Through Controlled Curing. K.D. Baker*, F.S. Wright, and J.S. Cundiff, Agricultural Engineering Dept., Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA and USDA-ARS, Suffolk, VA.

9:30 (68) Development of an Expert System for Curing Peanuts. J.M. Troeger* and C.L. Butts, USDA-ARS, Dawson, GA.

9:45 (69) Expert Systems for the Peanut Industry. J.I. Davidson*, M.C. Lamb, C.L Butts, M. Singletary, J.M. Troeger, E.J. Williams, J.S. Smith, and P.D. Blankenship, USDA-ARS, Dawson, GA and Consultant, Albany, GA.

10:00 BREAK

Graduate Student Papers ...•.••••••••••••..••..... York Hall

Moderator: H. T. Stalker, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC

10:30 (70) Radiation Use Efficiency of Peanut in Southern Ontario. M.J. Bell*, R.C. Roy, and T.E. Michaels, Dept. Crop Science, University of Guelph and Delhi Res. Stn., Guelph and Delhi, Ontario, Canada.

10:45 (71) Evaluation of Peanut Embryonic Leaflets as Recipient Tissue for Biolistic DNA Delivery. T.E. Clemente*, J.A. Schnall, M.K. Beute, and A.K. Weissinger, Dept. Plant Pathology and Dept. Crop Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC.

11 :00 (72) Peanut Cultivar Tolerance Differences to Nicosulfuron Applications. T .A. Littlefield*, D.L Colvin, and B.J. Brecke, Agronomy Dept., University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.

126 11: 15 (73) Comparison of Field Resistance and the Effect of Peanut Growth Habit with Expression of Metabolic and Physiological Resistance to Sclerotinia minor. G.F. Chappell* and M.K. Beute, Dept. Crop Science and Dept. Plant Pathology, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC.

11:30 (74) On-farm Evaluation of AU-Pnuts; an Expert System for Control of Leaf Spot Diseases of Peanut. P.M. Brann.en* and P.A. Backman, Dept. Plant Pathology, Auburn University, Auburn, AL.

11 :45 (75) Influence of Sulfur and Seaweed Extract on Peanut Yield. N.V. Nkongolo* and P.E. lgbokwe. Dept. Agriculture, Alcorn State University, Lorman, MS.

Economics Claremont Room

Moderator: G. A. Sullivan, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC

10:30 (76) PNTPLN, An Expert Systems Whole-farm Planning Model Designed to Optimize Peanut-based Rotation Decisions. M.C. Lamb*, J.I. Davidson, and C.L. Butts, USDA-AAS, Dawson, GA.

10:45 (77) Structural Trends in Southwest Peanut Production. F.D. Mills, Jr.*, Dept. of Agriculture and Environment, Abilene Christian University, Abilene, TX.

11 :00 (78) The National Peanut Poundage Quota: Analysis of Some Alternative Approaches. R.H. Miller*, USDA-ASCS, Washington, D.C.

11: 15 (79) An Examination of Federal Crop Insurance as a Risk Management Tool in Southeast Peanut Production. W.D. Shurley*, Dept. Agricultural and Applied Economics, University of Georgia, Rural Dev. Ctr., Tifton, GA.

11 :30 Discussion

Production and Seed Technology York Hall

Moderator: N. L. Powell, Virginia Tech, Suffolk, VA

1:00 (80) Row Pattern Demonstrations in Georgia, J.P. Beasley, Jr.* and J.A. Baldwin, Agronomy Dept., University of Georgia, Rural Dev. Ctr., Tifton, GA.

127 1:15 (81) Diamond Shaped Seeding of Six Peanut Cultivars. R.W. Mozingo* and F.S. Wright, Tidewater Agric. Exp. Stn., Virginia Tech and USDA-ARS, Suffolk, VA.

1:30 (82) Yield and Grade of Florunner Peanut Following Two Years of 'Tifton 9' Bahiagrass, Corn, or Peanuts. J.A. Baldwin*. Agronomy Dept., University of Georgia, Rural Dev. Ctr., Tifton, GA.

1:45 (83) An Index to Assess Quality of Peanut Seeds. D.L Ketring*. USDA-ARS, Stillwater, OK.

2:00 (84) Peanut . Germination Related to Potassium, Calcium, and Magnesium in Seed, Hulls, and Soils. G.J. Gascho*, W.R. Guerke, M.B. Parker, and T.P. Gaines, Dept. of Agronomy, University of Georgia and Georgia Dept. of Agriculture, Seed Laboratory, Tifton, GA.

2:15 (85) Sample Mixing in a Full-size Peanut Combine. B.J. Brecke*. University of Florida, Agric. Res. and Educ. Center, Jay, FL

2:30 Discussion

Fungicide Resistance Symposium • • • • • . • . • • • . . • Claremont Room

Moderator: J. Bailey, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC

1:00 (86) Fungicide Resistance in Peanut Production. T.B. Brenneman* and A.K. Culbreath, Dept. Plant Pathology, University of Georgia, Coastal Plain Exp. Stn., Tifton, GA.

1: 15 (87) Peanut Disease Control Strategies Utilizing Sterol Biosynthesis Inhibitors in Texas. T.A. Lee, Jr.*, Texas Agric. Exp. Stn., Texas A&M University, Stephenville, TX.

1:30 (88) Integrating Ergosterol Biosynthesis Inhibiting Fungicides into Strategies for Peanut Disease Control in Virginia. P.M. Phipps*, Tidewater Agric. Exp. Stn., Virginia Tech, Suffolk, VA.

1:45 (89) Application Strategies for Minimizing Resistance Build-up to Sterol Inhibitor Fungicides in Southeastern Peanuts. P.A. Backman*, Dept. Plant Pathology, Auburn University, Auburn, AL.

2:00 (90) Tank Mix Applications of Cyproconazole with Chlorothalonil for Control of Peanut Leafspot. A.K. Culbreath*, T.B. Brenneman, and F.M. Shakes, Dept. Plant Pathology, University of Georgia, Tifton, GA and University of Florida, Quincy, FL.

128 2:15 (91) Risk of Resistance to Sterol Biosynthesis Inhibitors. W. KOiier*. Cornell University, Dept. of Plant Pathology, New York State Agric. Exp. Stn., Geneva, NY.

2:45 (92) Better Management of Fungicide Resistance. J. French*, ISK­ Biotech, Mentor, OH.

3:00 (93) Fungicide Resistance Research within Ciba-Geigy-A Major Part of Product Stewardship. G.R. Watson*, Ciba-Geigy, Greensboro, NC.

3:15 (94) Application Strategies for Use of Tebuconazole on Peanut. K.A. Noegel*, Miles, Inc., Kansas City, MO.

3:30 Discussion

Economic Forces Impacting the U.S. Peanut Industry Symposium ...•...... •.•••....•..... Brandon Room

Moderators: M. C. Lamb and W. D. Shurley, USDA-ARS and University of Georgia, Dawson and Tifton, GA

1:00 (95) U.S. and World Peanut Market Analysis. S.M. Fletcher*, Dept. Agricultural and Applied Economics, University of Georgia, Georgia Exp. Stn., Griffin, GA. ·

1:20 (96) U.S. Peanut Trade Issues and GATT Update. T. Kay*, Kay Associates, Washington. D.C.

1:40 (97) U.S. Peanut Policy and Trade Issues: Impact on Peanut Farmers. D.H. Carley*, Dept. Agricultural and Applied Economics, University of Georgia, Georgia Exp. Stn., Griffin, GA.

2:00 (98) Regional Peanut Production Costs, Production History, and Market Structure: Profitability and Advantage. M.C. Lamb*, W.D. Shurley, F.D. Mills, Jr., and B. Brown, USDA-AAS and Dept. Agricultural and Applied Economics, University of Georgia, Dawson and Tifton, GA, Dept. Agriculture and Environment, Abilene Christian University, Abilene, TX, and Dept. Agricultural and Resource Economics, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC.

2:20 (99) Future Issues and Potential Changes in Domestic Peanut Policy. D.A. Sumner*, USDA, Washington, D.C.

2:40 (100) A Manufacturer's Perspective on GATT. C.C. Barnett*. Algood Food Company, Louisville, KY.

129 2:55 (101) A Grower's Perspective on GATT. J.L. Adams*, Grower, Camilla, GA.

3: 1O Discussion

Contributors to the 1992 APRES Meetings

On behalf of APRES members and guests, the Program Committee says "THANK YOU" to the following organizations for their generous financial and product contributions:

Special Activities

American Cyanamid Company Dow-Elanco ISK Biotech Corporation RhOne-Poulenc Ag Company Valent U.S.A. Corporation

Regular Activities

Agrotec, Inc. Alliance Fertilizer Crop./Plant Food Products Amadas Industries, Inc. BASF Corporation Birdsong Peanuts Bush Hog Implement Division Ciba-Geigy Corporation Colonial Farm Credit, ACA E.I. DuPont Ag Products FMC Corporation Ferguson Manufacturing Company, Inc. Gillam Brothers Peanut Sheller, Inc. Golden Peanut Company The Gregory Manufacturing Company Gustafson, Inc. Hancock Peanut Company Hubbard Peanut Company ICI Americas, Inc. Liphatech, Inc. Miles, Inc.

130 Miller Chemical and Fertilizer Corp. Nestle Chocolate and Confection Company NOR-AM Chemical Company North Carolina Crop Improvement Association, Inc. North Carolina Peanut Growers Association O'Connor and Company, Inc. Old Dominion Peanut Corporation The Peanut Gallery Peanut Growers Cooperative Marketing Association Pert Laboratories/Seabrook Enterprises, Inc. Planters Lifesavers Company Pond Bros. Peanut Company, Inc. Procter and Gamble Company Rohm and Haas Company Severn Peanut Company, Inc. Texasgulf, Inc. Tidewater Blanching Corporation Uniroyal Chemical U. S. Gypsum Company Vicam Aflatest Video Control Systems, Inc. Virginia-Carolina Peanut Association, Inc. Virginia-Carolina Peanut Farmers Coop. Association Virginia Crop Improvement Association, Inc. Virginia Peanut Growers Association, Inc. Virginia Power Whitley Peanut Company Waller Whittemore and Company

Products

Hershey Chocolate USA Jimbo's Jumbo's - Gary's Peanuts Koeze Company Lance, Inc. M&M/Mars The Nestle Company North Carolina Peanut Growers Association Planters Lifesavers Company Virginia Peanut Growers Association

131 SITE SELECTION COMMITTEE REPORT

The schedule for the annual meeting of APRES is:

July 13-16, 1993 - Huntsville, Alabama - Huntsville Hilton Hotel (room rates are $65.00 single, double, triple, quad) July 12-15, 1994 - Tulsa, Oklahoma - Sheraton Kensington Hotel (room rates are $55.00 single, double; $65.00 triple, quad) July 1995 - Charlotte, North Carolina Date and hotel to be announced.

The report was accepted.

Respectfully submitted,

Scott Wright, Chair

AMERICAN SOCIETY OF AGRONOMY LIAISON REPRESENTATIVE REPORT

The 83rd annual meeting of the American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, and the Soil Science Society of America was held October 27-November 1, 1991, in Denver, Colorado. The theme for this year's meeting was •Global Agronomic Opportunities•. Approximately 2575 papers were presented in 279 sessions, and slightly over half of these were given as posters. Members of APRES were authors or co-authors on some 12 total presentations involving various aspects of peanut research.

New Officers of the Tri-Societies (ASA, CSSA, and SSSA) are as follows: D.N. Duvick, president and D.R. Keeney, president-elect of ASA; G.H. Heichel, president and C.W. Stuber, president-elect of CSSA; and W.S. Mcfee, president and D.W. Nelson, president-elect of SSSA. Minneapolis, Minnesota, will host the 1992 meetings of these three sister societies from November 1-6.

Respectfully submitted,

William D. Branch ASA/APR ES Representative

132 CAST REPORT

The Council for Agricultural Science and Technology (CAST) is a consortium of 29 scientific societies in food and agriculture which compiles and publishes reports on public issues related to food, agriculture, the environment, and related issues. CAST has over 3500 individual and numerous corporate members. Scientists, most of whom are members of the various member professional societies, volunteer their time and expertise to develop CAST reports and articles for its science magazine and NewsCAST.

The Board of Directors of CAST met in Kansas City on August 24-26, 1991, and in Washington, DC, on March 7-9, 1992. Numerous topics were discussed and reported on by the various committees. At the Washington, DC, meeting, Dr. John Pesek (Distinguished Professor and Agronomist from Iowa State University) was presented CAST's Charles A. Black Award for outstanding contributions toward public understanding of the science of food and agriculture. Dr. Gale Buchanan took over as President for CAST (1992-93) at the close of the Washington meeting.

Dr. Stanley P. Wilson has retired as Executive Vice-President of CAST, effective June 30, 1992. Dr. Wilson is former vice-president for agriculture, home economics, and veterinary medicine at Auburn University and has served as CAST executive Vice-President since June 1, 1990. Dr. Wilson has provided a high degree of professionalism to CAST during his tenure as Executive Vice­ President and CAST has made great progress in reaching its goals during his tenure.

Guidelines and criteria for CAST consideration for reports are as follows:

1. The topic should be of broad national concern, and there should be a compelling need for the information. Topics on which legislative or regulatory decisions are pending, are likely to be made in the near future, or are perceived as being seriously needed, should be given highest priority. Regional and state issues may be considered if they have evident potential for national concern.

2. The topic should benefit from a multidisciplinary approach and should relate to one or more of the scientific disciplines represented in CAST member societies. T epics that fall within the boundaries of a single member society are not normally addressed by CAST.

3. With topics dealing with products, the perspective should be broad (e.g., explaining the impacts of agricultural mechanization rather than building a case of public funding of research on agricultural mechanization).

133 Recently published reports by CAST include:

1) Preparing U.S. Agriculture for Global Climatic Change- Apt. 119, June 1992. 2) Food Fats and Health - Task Force Apt. 118, Dec 1991. 3) Herbicide-resistant Crops - Comments from CAST, May 1991. 4) Pesticides - Minor Uses/Major Uses - Comments from CAST 1992-2, June 1992.

Reports from CAST that will be published in the near future include the following:

1) Risk/Benefit Assessment of Antibiotics Use in Animals 2) Risks Associated with Foodborne Pathogens 3) Waste Management and Utilization in Food Production and Processing 4) Quality of U.S. Agricultural Products 5) Water Quality: Agriculture's Role 6) The Impact of Alternative Agricultural Practices on the Environment 7) Relationship of Value-Added Activities on Agricultural Products and the U.S. Trade Balance 8) Animal Well-Being 9) Public Land Grazing: Social, Economic, and Regulatory Issues

Respectfully submitted,

D.W. Gorbet

134 NEW BOOK AD·HOC COMMITTEE REPORT

Present at the meeting on July 10, 1992, were members Thomas B. Whitaker, Chair; T.A. Coffelt, M.K. Beute, G.A. Buchanan, D.L. Hartzog, H.A. Melouk, C.K. Kvien (ex-officio); T.H. Sanders (ex-officio); and H.E. Pattee (ex­ officio). Others present were A.E. Colburn, A.M. Schubert (ex-officio), and C.C. Holbrook (ex-officio).

Working under the guidelines laid down by the Board of Directors in July 1991, the Ad-Hoc Committee developed the following recommendations concerning a new peanut book:

1. Editors - Harold Pattee and Thomas Stalker 2. Title - Advances in Peanut Science 3. Length - not to exceed 525 pages 4. Time Table - distribution by March 1995

A list of suggested topic areas for chapters along with suggested senior authors was developed.

Several publishing companies were contacted for publication and cost information. A publishing company needs to be identified that can receive chapter text on a computer diskette and keep production costs below $16.00 per book.

Respectfully submitted,

Thomas B. Whitaker, Chair

NATIONAL PEANUT COUNCIL RESEARCH AND EDUCATION AWARD ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT

The 1992 National Peanut Council Research and Education Award Committee had seven entries to consider this year for the National Peanut Council Research and Education Award. Dr. Johnny Wynne was declared winner and the award was presented by the National Peanut Council at the annual meeting in April.

Respectfully submitted,

Leland Tripp, Chair

135 REPORT OF LIAISON REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE SOUTHERN REGIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION DIRECTORS

The spring meeting of the Southern Regional Association of State Agricultural Experiment Station Directors was held in Knoxville, Tennessee, on May 27-79, 1992. The Tennessee Agricultural Experiment Station served as host for the meetings.

The Southern Agricultural Experiment Station Directors have initiated a research planning program that embraces the total research thrust in the Southern Region. This program is patterned generally along the lines of the national effort, but specifically designed to surface important research programs that should be addressed by scientists in the Southern Region. Results of this planning effort will probably be published during late 1992.

Peanuts continue to be one of the commodities included in the Southern Region IPM program which is administered by the Southern Agricultural Experiment Station Directors. Three projects pertaining to peanuts were funded under this program in the last series of awards.

Funding continued to be a major concern of the Southern Experiment Station Directors. Major effort is underway at the national level to support base funding through Hatch and Regional Research, as well as designated special grants. In addition, strong support is given by the Directors for the National Research Initiative.

The matter of experimental quota of peanuts involved in research continues to be a major concern of the Directors and will continue to be carefully monitored.

The Southern Regional Association of State Agricultural Experiment Station Directors continues to have a special interest in APRES and its role in supporting research and education in peanuts and enhancing the entire peanut industry.

Respectfully submitted,

Gale A. Buchanan

136 BY-LAWS

of the AMERICAN PEANUT RESEARCH AND EDUCATION SOCIETY, INC.

ARTICLE I. NAME

Section 1. The name of this organization shall be •AMERICAN PEANUT RESEARCH AND EDUCATION SOCIETY, INC.•

ARTICLE II. PURPOSE

Section 1. The purpose of this Society shall be to instruct and educate the public on the properties, production, and use of the peanut through the organization and promotion of public discussion groups, forums, lectures, and other programs or presentation to the interested public and to promote scientific research on the properties, production, and use of the peanut by providing forums, treatises, magazines, and other forms of educational material for the publication of scientific information and research papers on the peanut and the dissemination of such information to the interested public.

ARTICLE Ill. MEMBERSHIP

Section 1. The several classes of membership which shall be recognized are as follows:

a. Individual memberships: Individuals who pay dues at the full rate as fixed by the Board of Directors.

b. Institutional memberships: Libraries of industrial and educational groups or institutions and others that pay dues as fixed by the Board of Directors to receive the publications of the Society. Institutional members are not granted individual member rights.

c. Organizational memberships: Industrial or educational groups that pay dues as fixed by the Board of Directors. Organizational members may designate one representative who shall have individual member rights.

d. Sustaining membershios: Industrial organizations and·others that pay dues as fixed by the Board of Directors. Sustaining members are those who wish to support this Society financially to an extent beyond minimum requirements as set forth in Section 1c, Article Ill. Sustaining members may designate one representative who shall have individual member rights. Also, any organization may hold sustaining

137 memberships for any or all of its divisions or sections with individual member rights accorded each sustaining membership.

e. Student memberships: Full-time students who pay dues at a special rate as fixed by the Board of Directors. Persons presently enrolled as full-time students at any recognized college, university, or technical school are eligible for student membership. Post-doctoral students, employed persons taking referesher courses or special employee training programs are not eligible for student memberships.

Section 2. Any member, participant, or representative duly serving on the Board of Directors or a Committee of this Society and who is unable to attend any meeting of the Board or such Committee may be temporarily replaced by an alternate selected by the agency or party served by such member, participant, or representative upon appropriate written notice filed with the president or Committee chairman evidencing such designation or selection.

Section 3. All classes of membership may attend all meetings and participate in discussions. Only individual members or those with individual membership rights may vote and hold office. Members of all classes shall receive notification and purposes of meetings, and shall receive minutes of all Proceedings of the American Peanut Research and Education Society.

ARTICLE IV. DUES AND FEES

Section 1. The annual dues shall be determined by the Board of Directors with the advice of the Finance Committee subject to approval by the members at the annual meeting. Minimum annual dues for the five classes of membership shall be:

a. Individual memberships :$ 25.00 b. Institutional memberships 25.00 c. Organizational memberships 35.00 d. Sustaining memberships 125.00 e. Student memberships 5.00 (Dues were set at 1992 Annual Meeting)

Section 2. Dues are receivable on or before July 1 of the year for which the membership is held. Members in arrears on July 31 for dues for the current year shall be dropped from the rolls of this Society provided prior notification of such delinquency was given. Membership shall be reinstated for the current year upon payment of dues.

138 Section 3. A registration fee approved by the Board of Directors will be assessed at all regular meetings of the Society. The registration fee for student members shall be one-third that of members.

ARTICLE V. MEETINGS

Section 1. Annual meetings of the Society shall be held for the presentation of papers and/or discussion, and for the transaction of business. At least one general business session will be held during regular annual meetings at which reports from the executive officer and all standing committees will be given, and at which attention will be given to such other matters as the Board of Directors may designate. Also, opportunity shall be provided for discussion of these and other matters that members may wish to have brought before the Board of Directors and/or general membership.

Section 2. Additional meetings may be called by the Board of Directors, either on its own motion or upon request of one-fourth of the members. In either event, the time and place shall be fixed by the Board of Directors.

Section 3. Any member may submit only one paper as senior author for consideration by the program chairman of each annual meeting of the Society. Except for certain papers specifically invited by the Society president or program chairman with the approval of the president, at least one author of any paper presented shall be a member of this Society.

Section 4. Special meetings or projects by a portion of the Society membership, either alone or jointly with other groups, must be approved by the Board of Directors. Any request for the Society to underwrite obligations in connection with a proposed special meeting or project shall be submitted to the Board of Directors, who may obligate the Society to the extent they deem desirable.

Section 5. The executive officer shall give all members written notice of all meetings not less than 60 days in advance of annual meetings and 30 days in advance of all other special project meetings.

ARTICLE VI. QUORUM

Section 1. Forty voting members shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business at the business meeting held during the annual meeting.

Section 2. For meetings of the Board of Directors and all committees, a majority of the members duly assigned to such board or committee shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business.

139 ARTICLE VII. OFFICERS

Section 1. The officers of this Society shall consist of the president, the president-elect, the immediate surviving past-president and the executive officer of the Society, who may be appointed secretary and tresurer and given such other title as may be determined by the Board of Directors.

Section 2. The president and president-elect shall serve from the close of the annual general meeting of this Society to the close of the next annual general meeting. The president-elect shall automatically succeed to the presidency at the close of the annual general meeting. If the president-elect should succeed to the presidency to complete an unexpired term, he shall then also serve as president for the following full term. In the event the president or president-elect, or both, should resign or become unable or unavailable to serve during their terms of office, the Board of Directors shall appoint a president, or both president-elect and president, to complete the unexpired terms until the next annual general meeting when one or both offices, if necessary, will be filled by normal elective procedure. The most recent available past president shall serve as president until the Board of Directors can make such appointment.

Section 3. The officers and directors, with the exception of the executive officer, shall be elected by the members in attendance at the annual general meeting from nominees selected by the Nominating Committee or members nominated for this office from the floor. The president, president-elect, and surviving past-president shall serve without monetary compensation. The executive officer shall be appointed by a two-thirds majority vote of the Board of Directors.

Section 4. The executive officer may serve consecutive yearly terms subject to appointment by the Board of Directors. The tenure of the executive officer may be discontinued by a two-thirds vot€ of th3 Board of Directors who then shall appoint a temporary executive officer to fill the unexpired term.

Section 5. The president shall arrange and preside at all general meetings of the Board of Directors and with the advice, counsel, and assistance of the president-elect, and executive officer, and subject to consultation with the Board of Directors, shall carry on, transact, and supervise the interim affairs of the Society and provide leadership in the promotion of the objectives of this Society.

Section 6. The president-elect shall be program chairman, responsible.for development and coordination of the overall program of the education phase ofthe annual meetings.

Section 7. (a) The executive officer shall countersign all deeds, leases, and conveyances executed by the Society and affix the seal of the Society thereto

140 and to such other papers as shall be required or directed to be sealed. (b) The executive officer shall keep a record of the deliberations of the Board of Directors, and keep safely and systematically all books, papers, records, and documents belonging to the Society, or in any wise pertaining to the business thereof. (c) The executive officer shall keep account of all monies, credits, debts, and property of any and every nature accrued and/or disbursed by this Society, and shall render such accounts, statements, and inventories of monies, debts, and property, as shall be required by the Board of Directors. (d) The executive officer shall prepare and distribute all notices and reports as directed in these By-Laws, and other information deemed necessary by the Board of Directors, to keep the membership well informed of the Society activities.

ARTICLE VIII. BOARD OF DIRECTORS

Section 1. The Board of Directors shall consist of the following:

a. The president b. The most immediate past-president able to serve c. The president-elect d. Three State employees' representatives - these directors are those whose employment is state sponsored and whose relation to peanuts principally concerns research, and/or education, and/or regulatory pursuits. One director will be elected from each of the three main peanut producing areas. e. United State Department of Agriculture representative - this director is one whose employment is directly sponsored by the USDA or one of its agencies, and whose relation to peanuts principally concerns research, and/or education, and/or regulatory pursuits. f. Three Private Peanut Industry representatives - these directors are those whose employment is privately sponsored and whose principal activitiy with peanuts concerns: (1) the production of farmers' stock peanuts; (2) the shelling, marketing, and storage of raw peanuts; (3) the production or preparation of consumer food­ stuffs or manufactured products containing whole or parts of peanuts. g. The President of the National Peanut Council h. The Executive Officer - non-voting member of the Board of Directors who may be compensated for his services on a part-time or full-time salary stipulated by the Board of Directors in consultation with the Finance Committee.

Section 2. Terms of office for the directors' positions set forth in Section 1, paragraphs d, e, and f, shall be three years with elections to alternate from reference years as follows: d(VC area), e and f(2), 1992; d(SE area) and f(3), 1993; and d(SW area) and f(1), 1994.

141 Section 3. The Board of Directors shall determine the time and place of regular and special meetings and may authorize or direct the president to call special meetings whenever the functions, programs, and operations of the Society shall require special attention. All members of the Board of Directors shall be given at least 10 days advance notice of all meetings; except that in emergency cases, three days advance notice shall be sufficient.

Section 4. The Board of Directors will act as the legal representative of the Society when necessary and, as such, shall administer society property and affairs. The Board of Directors shall be the final authority on these affairs in conformity with the By-Laws.

Section 5. The Board of Directors shall make and submit to this Society such recommendations, suggestions, functions, operation, and programs as may appear necessary, advisable, or worthwhile.

Section 6. Contingencies not provided for elsewhere in these By-Laws shall be handled by the Board of Directors in a manner they deem advisable.

Section 7. An Executive Committee comprised of the president, president­ elect, immediate surviving past-president, and executive officer shall act for the Board of Directors between meetings of the Board, and on matters delegated to it by the Board. Its action shall be subject to ratification by the Board.

ARTICLE IX. COMMITTEES

Section 1. Members of the committees of the Society shall be appointed by the president and shall serve three-year terms unless otherwise stipulated. The president shall appoint a chairman of each committee from among the incumbent committeemen. The Board of Directors may, by a two-thirds vote, reject committee appoints. Appointments made to fill unexpected vacancies by incapacity of any committee member shall be only for the unexpired term of the incapacitated committeeman. Unless otherwise specified in these By-Laws, any committee member may be re-appointed to succeed himself, and may serve on two or more committees concurrently but shall not hold concurrent chairmanships. Initially, one-third of the members of each committee will serve one-year terms, as designated by the president. The president shall announce the committees immediately upon assuming the office at the annual business meeting. The new appointments take effect immediately upon announcement.

Section 2. Any or all members of any committee may be removed for cause by a two-thirds approval by the Board of Directors.

a. Finance Committee: This committee shall include at least four members, one each representing State and USDA and two from Private Business segments of the peanut industry. This committee shall be responsible for preparation of the financial budget of the

142 Society and for promoting sound fiscal policies within the Society. They shall direct the audit of all financial records of the Society annually, and make such recommendation as they deem necessary or as requested or directed by the Board of Directors. The term of the Chairman shall close with preparation of the budget for the following year, or with the close of the annual meeting at which a report is given in the work of the Finance Committee under his chairmanship, whichever is later. b. Nominating Committee: This committee shall consist of at least three members appointed to one-year terms, one each representing State, USDA, and Private Business segments of the peanut industry. This committee shall nominate individual members to fill the positions as described and in the manner set forth in Articles VII and VIII of these By-Laws and shall convey their nominations to the president of this Society on or before the date of the annual meeting. The committee shall, insofar as possible, make nominations for the president-elect that will provide a balance among the various segments of the industry and a rotation among federal, state, and industry members. The willingness of any nominee to accept the responsibility of the position shall be ascertained by the committee (or members making nominations at general meetings) prior to the election. No person may succeed himself as a member of this committee. c. Publication and Editorial Committee. This committee shall consist of at least three members for three-year terms, one each representing State, USDA, and Private Business segments of the peanut industry. The members will normally serve two consecutive three-year terms, subject to approval by the Board. Initial election shall alternate from reference years as follows: Private Business. 1983; USDA, 1984; and State, 1985. This committee shall be responsible for the publication of Society-sponsored publications as authorized by the Board of Directors in consultation with the Finance Committee. This committee shall formulate and enforce the editorial policies for all publications of the Society subject to the directives from the Board of Directors. d. Peanut Quality Committee. This committee shall include at least seven members, one each actively involved in research in peanuts - (1) varietal development, (2) production and marketing practices related to quality, and (3) physical and chemical properties related to quality - and one each representing the Grower, Sheller, Manufacturer, and Services (pesticides and harvesting machinery in particular) segments of the peanut industry. This committee shall actively seek improvement in the quality of raw and processed peanuts and peanut products through promotion of mechanisms for the elucidation and solution of major problems and deficiencies.

143 e. Public Relations Committee. This committee shall include at least seven members, one each representing the State, USDA, Grower, Sheller, Manufacturer, and Services segments of the peanut industry, and a member from the university of the host state who will serve a one-year term to coincide with the term of the president-elect. The primary purpose of this person will be to publicize the meeting and make photographic records of important events at the meeting. This committee shall provide leadership and direction for the Society in the following areas:

(1) Membership: Development and implementation of mechanisms to create interest in the Society and increase its membership. These shall include, but not be limited to, preparing news releases for the home-town media of persons recognized at the meeting for significant achievements. (2) Cooperation: Advise the Board of Directors relative to the extent and type of cooperation and/or affiliation this Society should pursue and/or support with other organizations. (3) Necrology: Proper recognition of deceased members. (4) Resolutions: Proper recognition of special services provided by members and friends of the Society.

f. Bailey Award Commitee: This committee shall consist of at least six members, with two new appointments each year, serving three-year terms. This committee shall be responsible for judging papers which are selected from each subject matter area. Initial screening for the award will be made by judges, selected in advance and having expertise in that particular area, who will listen to all papers in that subject matter area. This initial selection will be made on the basis of quality of presentation and content. Manuscripts of selected papers will be submitted to the committee by the author(s) and final selection will be made by the committee, based on the technical quality of the paper. The president, president-elect and executive officer shall be notified of the Award recipient at least sixty days prior to the annual meeting following the one at which the paper was presented. The president shall make the award at the annual meeting.

g. Fellows Committee: This committee shall consist of six members, two representing each of the three major geographic areas of peanut production and with balance among State, USDA, and Private Business. Terms of office shall be for three years with initial terms as outlined in Section 1 of this Article. The committee shall select from nominations received, according to procedures adopted by the Society (P148-9 of 1981 Proceedings of APRES), qualified nominees for approval by the Board of Directors.

144 h. National Peanut Council Research and Education Award Committee: This committee shall consist of six APRES members appointed by the president and represent the three areas of peanut production. Three committee members shall be former winners (preferably most recent) and the other three members shall be selected so as· to maintain a balance on the committee between the three production areas. Terms of office shall be for three years as outlined in Section 1 of this Article. This committee shall serve as an advisory committee by screening nominations received by the National Peanut Council. The final selection shall be made by the National Peanut Council.

i. Site Selection Committee: This committee shall consist of eight members, each serving four-year terms. New appointments shall come from the state which will host the meeting four years following the meeting at which they are appointed. The chairman of the committee shall be from the state which will host the meeting the next year and the vice-chairman shall be from the state which will host the meeting the second year. The vice-chairman will automatically move up to chairman.

j. Covt T. Wilson Distinguished Service Award Committee: This committee shall consist of six members, with two new appointments each year, serving three year terms. Two committee members will be selected from each of the three main peanut producing areas. This committee shall review and rank nominations and submit these rankings to the committee chair. The nominee with the highest ranking shall be the recipient of the award. In the event of a tie, the committee will vote again, considering only the two tied individuals. Guidelines for nomination procedures and nominee qualifications shall be published in the Proceedings of the annual meeting. The president, president-elect, and executive officer shall be notified of the award recipient at least sixty days prior to the annual meeting. The president shall make the award at the annual meeting.

ARTICLE X. DIVISIONS

Section 1. A Division within the Society may be created upon recommendation of the Board of Directors, or members may petition the Board of Directors for such status, by two-thirds vote of the general membership. likewise, in a similar manner, a Division may be dissolved.

Section 2. Divisions may establish or dissolve Subdivision upon the approval ofthe Board of Directors.

Section 3. Division may make By-Laws for their own govenment, provided they are consistent with the rules and regulations of the Society, but no dues may be assessed. Divisions and Subdivisions may elect officers (chairman,

145 vice-chairman to succeed to the chairmanship, and a secretary) and appointment committees, provided the efforts thereof do not overlap or conflict with those of the officers and committees of the main body of the Society.

ARTICLE XI. AMENDMENTS

Section 1. These By-Laws may be amended consistent with the provision of the Articles of Incorporation by a two-thirds vote of all the eligible voting members present at any regular business meeting, provided such amendments shall be submitted in writing to each member of the Board of Directors at least thirty days before the meeting at which the action is to be taken.

Section 2. A By-Law or amendment to a By-Law shall take effect immediately upon its adoption, except that the Board of Directors may establish a transition schedule when it considers that the change may best be effected over a period of time. The amendment and transition schedule, if any. shall be published in the •Proceedings of APR Es·.

Amended at the Annual Meeting of the American Peanut Research and Education Society July 10, 1992, Norfolk, Virginia

146 APRES MEMBERSHIP (1975- 1992)

CATEGORY 1975 1976 19n 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986' 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992

Individual 419 363 386 383 406 386 478 470 419 421 513 455 475 455 415 416 398 399

Sustaining 21 30 29 32 32 33 39 36 30 31 29 27 26 27 24 21 20 17

Organizational 40 45 48 50 53 58 66 65 53 52 65 66 62 59 54 47 50 40

Student 14 21 27 27 31 24 30 33 40 27 34 35 28 29 26 28

Institutional 45 45 54 72 63 73 81 66 58 95 102 110 93 92 85 67 71

Total Members 480 483 522 540 590 567 687 676 598 595 742 6n 707 669 613 598 561 555 1992 MEMBERSHIP ROSTER

INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS

GARY AAGESEN WILLIAM F. ANDERSON MILES, INC. USDA-AAS 4913 HAWTHORNE ROAD COASTAL PLAINS EXP STATION KANSAS CITY, MO 64120 TIFTON, GA 31793 USA USA 919-737-3281 REMEDIOS ABILAY UNNERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES JEANNETTE H. ANDERSON INST OF PL BREEDING, COL OF AG 5020 NORTH 30TH STREET COLLEGE, LAGUNA, ARLINGTON, VA 22207 PHILIPPINES USA

KEITH ADAMS JOHN C. ANDERSON NATIONAL PEANUT COUNCIL ALABAMA A & M UNIVERSITY 1500 KING STREET, SUITE 301 P. 0. BOX264 ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314 NORMAL, AL 35762 USA USA 703-838-9500 205-851-5445

MAX ADAMS, JR. C. RUSS ANDRESS ROUTE 1, BOX 111 385 FM 346-E HEADLAND, AL 36345 TYLER, TX 75703-8900 USA USA 205-693-2n1 903-839-8257

FLOYD J. ADAMSEN FRANK ARTHUR 4331 E BROADWAY ROAD USDA-AAS PHOENIX, AZ. 85040 P. 0. BOX 22909 USA SAVANNAH, GA31403 602-379-4356 USA 912-233-7981 LEON ALLEN P.O. BOX 1148 JAMES ASHLEY WILLIAMSTON, NC 27892 RHONE-POULENC AG CO USA P. 0. BOX665 919-792-1621 SUFFOLK, VA 23434 USA GEORGE D. ALSTON 804-255-2369 TEXAS A & M UNIVERSITY ROUTE 2, BOX 1 STEPHENVILLE, TX 76401 USA 817-968-4144

148 AMRAMASHRI CHARLES H. BALDWIN, JR. FACULTY OF AGRICULTURE RHONE-POULENC AGRIC CO P.O. BOX 12 2 T.W. ALEXANDER DRIVE REHOVOT 76100, RES TRIANGLE PARK, NC 27709 IS RAEL USA 972-8-481211 919-549-2360

ALAN R. AYERS DONALD J. BANKS RHONE-POULENC AGRIC CO. P.O. BOX 2286 2 T.W. ALEXANDER DRIVE STILLWATER, OK 74076 RES TRIANGLE PARK, NC 27709 USA USA 405-372-867 4 919-549-2748 STEVE BARNES JAMES L. AYRES PEANUT BELT RESEARCH STATION GOLD KIST INCORPORATED P.O. BOX220 P.O. BOX 2210 LEWISTON, NC 27849 ATLANTA, GA 30301 USA USA 919-348-2213 404-393-5292 JAMES L. BAAR PAUL BACKMAN 25 DREW COURT AUBURN UNIVERSITY DOVER, DE 19901 DEPT. OF PLANT PATHOLOGY USA AUBURN, AL 36849 USA ALLAN BASNIGHT 205-844-4000 2737 WEST ABGROEON DRIVE MONTGOMORY, AL 36116 MICHEAL J. BADER USA UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA 205-277-0813 RURAL DEV. CTR, P. 0. BOX 1209 TIFTON, GA 31793 A. GREGG BAYARD USA 19 WEATHERSTONE PARKWAY MARIETTA. GA 30068 JACK BAILEY USA NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIV 404-977-7124 DEPT OF PLANT PATH, PO BOX 7616 RALEIGH, NC 27695-7616 DANISE BEADLE USA NOR-AM CHEMICAL CO. 919-515-2711 P.O. BOX7 CANTONMENT, FL 32533 JOHN A. BALDWIN USA P. 0. BOX 1209 904-587-2122 TIFTON, GA 31793 USA J.E. BEAM 912-386-3430 PLANTERS LIFESAVERS 1100 REYNOLDS BLVD. WINSTON-SALEM, NC 27102 USA

149 RICHARD BEARDMORE MARVIN K. BEUTE AG-CHEM, INC. NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIV 312 WEST MAIN STREET PLANT PATH DEPT, BOX 7616 SALISBURY, MD 21801 RALEIGH, NC 27695-7616 USA USA 410-548-2200 919-515-2735

JOHN P. BEASLEY, JR. W. M. BIRDSONG, JR. P.O. BOX 1209 BIRDSONG PEANUTS TIFTON, GA 31793 P.O. BOX776 USA FRANKLIN, VA 23851 912-386-3430 USA 804-562-3177 FRED BELFIELD, JR. ROOM 102, AG CNTR, AG CNTR DR MARK C. BLACK NASHVILLE, NC 27856 TEXAS A & M UNIVERSITY, AREC USA P.O. BOX 1849 919-443-6786 UVALDE, TX 78802-1849 USA JOHNW. BELL 512-278-9151 MILES, INC. BOX 4913 - 8400 HAWTHORN ROAD DOUGLAS E. BLACKMON KANSAS CITY, MO 64120-0013 ROUTE 1, BOX 1560 USA ROCHELLE, GA 31079 USA D.K.BELL 912-648-6474 COASTAL PLAIN EXP STATION PLANT PATHOLOGY PAXBLAMEY TIFTON, GA 31793-0748 UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND USA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

912-386-3370 BRISBANE 4072 1 AUSTRALIA JERRY M. BENNETT UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA PAUL D. BLANKENSHIP P.O. BOX 110840 NATIONAL PEANUT RESEARCH LAB GAINESVILLE, FL 32611-0840 1011 FORRESTER DR., SE USA DAWSON, GA 31742 904-392-6180 USA 912-995-4441 MARIAN N. BEREMAND TEXAS A & M UNIVERSITY PAUL W. BODENSTINE DEPT OF PLANT PATH & MICROBIO ALLIANCE AGRONOMICS, INC. COLLEGE STATION, TX 77843 5810 MEADOWBRIDGE ROAD USA MECHANICSVILLE, VA 23111 409-84G-4636 USA 804-746-5923 KAREN BETT ~ USDA-AR$ CLYDE BOGLE P.O. BOX 19687 NCDA-UPPER COASTAL PL RES STA NEW ORLEANS, LA 70179 ROUTE 2, BOX 400 USA ROCKY MOUNT, NC 27801 504-286-4459 USA

150 KENNETH J. BOOTE MARK BRAXTON UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2825 JACKSON BLUFF ROAD AGRON DEPT., 304 NEWELL HALL MARIANNA, FL 32446 GAINESVILLE, FL 32611 USA USA 904-547-2894 904-392-1811 BARRY J. BRECKE W. H. BORDT UNN OF FLORIDA AG RES CTR 60 OXFORD PLACE ROUTE 3, BOX 575 BELLE MEAD, NJ 08502 JAY, FL 32565 USA USA 904-994-5215 J. P. BOSTICK P.O. BOX357 TIMOTHY BRENNEMAN HEADLAND, AL 36345 COASTAL PLAIN EXP STATION USA DEPT PLANT PATHOLOGY 205-821-7 400 TIFTON, GA 31794 USA KIRA L. BOWEN 912-386-3371 AUBURN UNIVERSITY DEPT PLANT PATH-139 FUNCHESS A. BLAKE BROWN AUBURN, AL 36859 NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIV USA DEPT OF AGRIC & RESOURCE ECON 205-844-1953 RALEIGH, NC 27695-8109 USA JOHN V. BOYNE 919-515-1608 RHONE-POULENC P.O. BOX 12014 STEVE L BROWN RES TRIANGLE PARK, NC 2n09 UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA USA P.O. BOX 1209 TIFTON, GA 31793 WILLIAM D. BRANCH USA UNN OF GEORGIA- DEPT OF AGRON 912-386-3424 COASTAL PLAIN EXP STATION TIFTON, GA 31793-0748 STEVEN M. BROWN USA UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA 912-386-3561 P.O. BOX 1209 TIFTON, GA 31793 RICK L. BRANDENBURG USA NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIV 912-386-3509 ENTOMOLOGY DEPT, BOX 7613 RALEIGH, NC 27695-7613 ROBERT G. BRUSS USA RHONE-POULENC AG COMPANY 919-515-2703 P.O. BOX 12014 RES TRIANGLE PARK, NC 27709 GURDIP S. BRAR USA AGRACETUS, INC. 919-387-9519 8520 UNIVERSITY GREEN MIDDLETON, WI 53562 USA 608-836-7300

151 GALE A. BUCHANAN IAN S. CAMPBELL COASTAL PLAIN EXP STATION UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII @ MANCA P.O. BOX748 1910 EAST-WEST ROAD - AGRSS TIFTON, GA 31793 HONOLULU, HI 96822 USA USA 912-386-3338 808-956-6971

ROGER C. BUNCH W. V. CAMPBELL P.O. BOX248 4312 GALAX DRIVE

TYNER, NC 27980 RALEIGH, NC 27612 :! USA USA 919-221-4466 919-787-1417

DIANE BURRELL CHARLES S. CANNON '!!" PEANUT FACTORY ROUTE 2, BOX 1020 PO BOX 6029, 1801 PARRISH DR, SE ABBEVILLE, GA 31001 ROME, GA 30161 USA USA 912-467-2042 404-235-8546 DALE H. CARLEY J. L BUTLER GEORGIA STATION 2823 RAINWATER ROAD DEPT. OF AG ECONOMICS TIFTON, GA 31794 GRIFFIN, GA 30223 USA USA 912-382-3382 404-228-7231

CHRIS BUTTS W. RANDOLPH CARTER NATIONAL PEANUT RESEARCH LAB VIRGINIA-CAROLINA PEANUT ASSOC. 1011 FORRESTER DR., SE LOCK DRAWER 499 DAWSON, GA 31742 SUFFOLK, VA 23434 USA USA 912-995-4441 TOM CARY ELISEO CADAPAN 2451 GEORGIA HIGHWAY 313 UNIV OF PHILIPPINES LOS BARNO SYLVESTER, GA 31791 DEPT OF ENTOMOLOGY USA COLLEGE, LAGUNA 4031, 912-776-8217 PHILIPPINES JEFFREY CASSADY JOHN S. CALAHAN, JR. MILES, INC. TARLETON STATE UNIVERSITY 2624 S. SCALES STREET DEPT OF BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES REIDSVILLE, NC 27320 STEPHENVILLE, TX 76402 USA USA 919-342-6024 817-968-4158 SAM R. CECIL KEVIN CALHOUN 1119 MAPLE DRIVE ~ FARMERS FERTILIZER &MILLING CO. GRIFFIN, GA 30223 P.O. BOX265 USA COLQUITI, GA 31737 404-228-8835 USA 912-758-3520

152 JOE CHAMBERLIN R. DEAN CHRISTIE COASTAL PLAIN EXP STATION MILES, INC. USDA-ARS-IBPMRL 28003 ROCKY HOLLOW TIFTON, GA 31793-0748 SAN ANTONIO, TX 78258 USA USA 912-387-2334 512-497-7453

JAY W. CHAPIN SI-YIN CHUNG CLEMSON UNIV-EDISTO EXP STA USDA-AAS P.O. BOX247 1100 ROBERT E LEE BLVD BLACKVILLE, SC 29817 NEW ORLEANS, LA 70124 USA USA 803-284-3343 504-286-4465

SHUl-HO CHENG BRUCE R. COBB COUNCIL OF AGRIC, EXEC YUAN U.S. GYPSUM CO. 37 NAN-HAI ROAD P.O. BOX 40111 TAIPEI, TAIWAN 107, RALEIGH, NC 27629 REP OF CHINA USA

JOHN P. CHERRY TERRY A. COFFELT ERRC, AAS-USDA USDA-AAS 600 E. MERMAID LANE P.O. BOX 7099 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19118 SUFFOLK, VA 23437 USA USA 215-233-6595 804-657-6450

MANJEET CHINNAN A. EDWIN COLBURN UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA TEXAS AGRIC EXTENSION SERVICE DEPT FOOD SCI & TECH/GA EXP STA 348 SOIL & CROP SCIENCES GRIFFIN, GA 30223 COLLEGE STATION, TX 77843-2474 USA USA 404-228-7284 409-845-2935

ROBIN Y.-Y. CHIOU DESIREE L. COLE NATIONAL CHIAYI INST OF AGRIC UNIVERSITY OF ZIMBABWE DEPT FOOD INDUSTRY DEPT OF CROP SCI, PO BOX MP 167 CHIAYI, TAIWAN 60083, MOUNT PLEASANT HARARE REP OF CHINA ZIMBABWE 886-5-276614 RICHARD J. COLE Z. ALBERT CHITEKA NATIONAL PEANUT RESEARCH LAB CROP BREEDING INSTITUTE 1011 FORRESTER DRIVE BOX8100, CAUSEWAY-DEPT AGRON 'DAWSON, GA 31742 HARARE 704531 USA ZIMBABWE 912-995-4441

153 JAMES R. COLLINS CLYDE R. CRUMLEY RHONE-POULENC AG COMPANY TEXAS AGRIC. EXTENSION SERVICE P.O. BOX 1467 P.O. DRAWERZ CARY, NC 27512. PEARSALL, TX 78061 USA USA 919-387-8842 512-334-3290

DANIEL L COLVIN ALEXCSINOS UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA COASTAL PLAIN EXP STATION 303 NEWELL HALL DEPT PLANT PATHOLOGY GAINESVILLE, FL 32611 TIFTON, GA 31793 USA USA 904-392-1818 912-386-3370

EDITH J. CONKERTON RAUL CUERO SOUTHERN REGIONAL RES CENTER PRAIRIE VIEW A & M UNIVERSITY P.O. BOX 19687 CARC/P.O. BOX 4079 NEW ORLEANS, LA 70179-0687 PRAIRIE VIEW, TX n446 USA USA 504-589-7075 409-857 -3012

REXFORD COTTEN ALBERT K. CULBREATH EXTENSION AGENT AGRIC COASTAL PLAIN EXP STATION ISLE-OF-WIGHT COURTHOUSE DEPT PLANT PATHOLOGY ISLE-OF-WIGHT, VA 23397 TIFTON, GA 31793-0748 USA USA 804-357-3191 912-386-3370

DONNA L. COURTNEY DAVID G. CUMMINS M & M/MARS UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA 295 BROWN STREET PEANUT CRSP, GEORGIA STATION ELIZABETHTOWN, PA 17022 GRIFFIN, GA 30223 USA USA 717-367-1500 404-228-7312

FRED R. COX JOHN CUNDIFF NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIV VPI & SU SOIL SCIENCE DEPT, BOX 7619 AG ENGINEERING DEPT RALEIGH, NC 27695 BLACKSBURG, VA 24061 USA USA 919-515-2388 703-231-7603

DOUGLAS CREECY KIMBERLY J. CUTCHINS ~ ISK BIOTECH NATIONAL PEANUT COUNCIL ROCKY MOUNT, NC 27801 1500 KING ST., SUITE 301 USA ALEXANDRIA. VA 22314 USA ~ 703-838-9500

154 HIROYUKI DAIMON DAVID E. DOUGHERTY UNIVERSITY OF OSAKA PREFECTURE BASF CORPORATION COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE P.O. BOX 13528 GAKUENCHO, SAKAI, OSAKA 591, RES TRIANGLE PARK, NC 2n09-3528 JAPAN USA 919-248-6582 JOHN P. DAMICONE OKLAHOMA STATE UNIVERSITY FLOYD DOWELL DEPT OF PLANT PATHOLOGY USDA-AAS STILLWATER, OK 74078 1011 FORRESTER DR., SE USA DAWSON, GA 31742 405-744-9962 USA 912-995-4441 KENTON DASHIELL 1616 CEDAR STREET CLYDE C. DOWLER ELKHART, IN 46514 USDA-AAS USA COASTAL PLAIN EXP. STATION 219-522-2909 TIFTON, GA 31793 USA JAMES I. DAVIDSON, JR. 912-386-3352 NATIONAL PEANUT RESEARCH LAB 1011 FORRESTER DR, SE SAIT DRAMMEH DAWSON, GA 31742 P.O. BOX567 USA BANJUL, GAMBIA, 912-995-4441 WEST AFRICA

J. W. DEMSKI C. E. DRYE GEORGIA EXPERIMENT STATION CLEMSON UNIV EIDSTO RES/ED CTR DEPT PLANT PATHOLOGY P.O. BOX247 GRIFFIN, GA 30223 BLACKVILLE, SC 29817 USA USA 404-228-7204 JUANGJUN DUANGPATRA URBAN L. DIENER KASETSART UNIVERSITY 411 SUMMERTREES DRIVE DEPT OF AGRON, FAC OF AGRIC AUBURN, AL 36830 BANGKOK 10900, USA THAILAND

FRANK G. DOLLEAR KERRY B. DUNBAR 64645 HWY 41 702-7 HAMPTON COURT PEARL RIVER, LA 70452 DALTON, GA 30720 USA USA 504-863-7490 S. L. DWIVEDI JOE W. DORNER ICRISAT - AFT INT FREIGHT SYS INC. USDA-AAS, NAT'L PEANUT RES LAB 146-92 GUY R. BREWER BLVD. 1011 FORRESTER DR, SE JAMAICA, NY 11434 DAWSON, GA 31742 USA USA 912-995-4441

155 CARL E. EASON D. G. FARIS P.O. BOX249 #308-1012 COLLINSON STREET WINDSOR, VA 23487 VICTORIA. BRITISH COLUMBIA, USA CANADA V8V 3C1 804-242-6101 382-6178

FORD EASTIN JANET FERGUSON COASTAL PLAIN EXP STATION NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIV AGRONOMY DEPT, P.O. BOX 748 CROP SCIENCE DEPT, BOX 7620 TIFTON, GA 31793 RALEIGH, NC 27695 USA USA 912-386-3361 919-515-3267

RANDY W. EDWARDS STANLEY M. FLETCHER 1" MILLER CHEMICAL CORP. UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA P.O. BOX 1518 DEPT OF AG ECON, GEORGIA STA ROANOKE RAPIDS, NC 27870 GRIFFIN, GA 30223-1797 USA USA 404-228-7231 CHRIS ELLIOTT AMERICAN CYANAMID SIDNEY W. FOX ONE CYANAMID PLAZA ROUTE 4, BOX 50 WAYNE, NJ 07470 DONALSONVILLE, GA 31745 USA USA 201-831-3684 912-524-2724

RON ELLIOTT Z. R. FRANK OKLAHOMA STATE UNIVERSITY INST. OF PLANT PROTECTION 116 AG HALL - AG ENGINEERING THE VOLCANI CENTER, P.O. BOX 6 STILLWATER, OK 74078 BET-DAGAN 50250, USA IS RAEL 405-744-8423 JOHN C. FRENCH EARL ELSNER 639 SOUTH COLLEGE STREET GEORGIA SEED DEV COMM AUBURN, AL 36830 2420 S. MILLEDGE AVE USA ATHENS, GA 30600 USA JOHN R. FRENCH 706-542-5640 ISK-BIOTECH CORP. 5966 HEISLEY RD, P.O. BOX 8000 JOHN W. EVEREST MENTOR, OH 44061-8000 AUBURN UNIVERSITY USA 107 EXTENSION HALL :!! AUBURN UNIVERSITY, AL 36849 NORM FUGATE USA WOODROE FUGATE & so~s 205-844-5493 P.O. BOX 114 WILLISTON, FL 32696 LAURIE FALK USA ROHM AND HAAS COMPANY 904-528-5871 13106 DAWNWOOD TERRACE MIDLOTHIAN, VA 23113 USA

156 JOE E. FUNDERBURK DANIEL W. GORBET NFREC, IFAS - UNIV OF FLORIDA N. FLORIDA RES & EDUC CENTER ROUTE 3, BOX 4370 3925 HIGHWAY 71 QUINCY, FL 32351 MARIANNA, FL 32446-7906 USA USA 904-627-9236 904-482-9904

GARY GASCHO CHARLES GRAHAM UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA GUSTAFSON, INC. COASTAL PLAIN EXP STA, POB 748 P.O. BOX 660065 TIFTON, GA 31793 DALLAS, TX 75266-0065 USA USA 912-386-3329 214-985-8877

LEONARD P. GIANESSI JOHN M. GREEN RESOURCES FOR THE FUTURE 101 SYCAMORE ST 1616 P STREET, NW LELAND, MS 38756 WASHINGTON, DC 20036 USA USA 601-686-9784 202-238-5000 CLARENCE V. GREESON PIERRE F. GILLIER l.C.I. AMERICAS 15-17 ALLEE DU CLOS DE TOURVOIE P.O. BOX 384, 111 PARKS DRIVE 94260 FRESNES, PIKEVILLE, NC 27863 FRANCE USA

MIKE GODFREY WILLIAM W. GREGORY, Ill M & M MARS 3504 HUNTINGTON PL P.O. BOX 3289 DOTHAN, AL 36303 ALBANY, GA 31708-1701 USA USA 912-883-4000 JAMES GRICHAR PLANT DISEASE RES STATION ROBERT D. GOERGER P.O. BOX755 EXTENSION AGENT AGRIC YOAKUM, TX 77995 ISLE-OF-WIGHT COURTHOUSE USA ISLE-OF-WIGHT, VA 23397-9999 512-293-6326 USA 804-357-3191 BILLY J. GRIFFIN NC COOP EXT SERV, BERTIE CNTR DEWITT T. GOODEN P.O. BOX280 PEEDEE RES & ED CENTER WINDSOR, NC 27983 ROUTE 1, BOX 531 USA FLORENCE, SC 29501-9603 919-794-5317 USA 8()3.669..1912 KEITH GRIFFITH UNIROYAL CHEMICAL 6233 RIDGEBERRY CT ORLANDO, FL 32819 USA 407-345-8701

157 ALAN HAACK JOHN HANEY 121 BOWHILL COURT WESTRECO INC IRMO, SC 29063 sn s. FOURTH STREET USA FULTON, NY 13069 803-749-8668 USA 315-59a.8402 JAMES F. HADDEN ISK BIOTECH CORP. ZACKIE W. HARRELL ROUTE 1, BOX 255 NORTH CAROLINA AG EXT SERVICE OMEGA, GA 31n5 P.O. BOX46 USA GATESVILLE, NC 27938 USA AUSTIN HAGAN 919-351-1400 AUBURN UNIVERSITY ~ 107 EXTENSION HALL GERALD W. HARRISON AUBURN, AL 36849 ISK BIOTECH CORP USA P.O. BOX 70665 205-826-4940 ALBANY, GA 31707 USA DENNIS B. HALE DOWELANCO, SUITE 150 DALLAS L. HARTZOG 4900 FALLS OF THE NEUSE RD AUBURN UNIVERSITY RALEIGH, NC 27609 P.O. BOX217 USA HEADLAND, AL 36345 919-790-1989 USA 205-693-2010 JOHN M. HAMMOND CIBA-GEIGY ~. ERNEST HARVEY P.O. BOX 2369 AGRATECH SEEDS INC. AUBURN, AL 36830 P.O. BOX644 USA ASHBURN, GA 31714 USA .LUTHER C. HAMMOND 912-567-3297 UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2169 MCCARTY HALL PETER F. HATFIELD GAINESVILLE, FL 32611 PMB AUSTRALIA USA P.O. BOX26 904-392-1951 KINGAROY, OLD 4610, AUSTRALIA R. 0. HAMMONS 1203 LAKE DRIVE LARRY R. HAWF TIFTON, GA 31794-3834 MONSANTO AGRICULTURAL CO USA P.O. BOX 188 912-382-3157 SASSER, GA 31785 USA CHARLES T. HANCOCK BIRDSONG PEANUTS R. C. HEARFIELD P.O. BOX469 KP FOODS GROUP DAWSON, GA 31742 WINDY RIDGE, ASHBY-DE-LA-ZOUCH USA LEICESTERSHIRE LE65 2UQ, 912-995-6431 ENGLAND

158 JAMES C. HENDERSON STEVEN C. HODGES PROCTER & GAMBLE UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA 6071 CENTER HILL AVE. P.O. BOX 1209 CINCINNATI, OH 45224 TIFTON, GA 31793 USA USA 513-634-7578 912-386-3509

RONALD J. HENNING DAVID M. HOGG ROUTE 4, BOX 146A P.O. BOX 40111 COLQUITI, GA 31737 RALEIGH, NC 27629 USA USA 912-430-7500 919-872-2151

AMES HERBERT C. CORLEY HOLBROOK TIDEWATER AG EXP STATION USDA-AAS-SAA P.O. BOX 7099, 6321 HOLLAND RD. P.O. BOX 748 SUFFOLK, VA 23437 TIFTON, GA 31793 USA USA 804-657-6450 912-386-3176

GLEN L. HEUBERGER W. CLAYTON HOLTON, JR. TIDEWATER AG EXP STATION NO. 6 CHURCHILL CIRCLE P.O. BOX 7099, 6321 HOLLAND RD. LEESBURG, GA 31763 SUFFOLK, VA 23437 USA USA 912-435-1970 804-657-6103 GERRIT HOOGENBOOM TIMOTHY D. HEWITT UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA NORTH FLORIDA RES & EDUC CNTR DEPT OF BIO/AG ENGINEERING 3925 HIGHWAY 71 GRIFFIN, GA 30223-1797 MARIANNA, FL 32446 USA USA 404-228-7216 904-482-9904 JOHN D. HOPKINS T. VINT HICKS RHONE-POULENC AG COMPANY 2340 OAK ROAD, SUITE 302-C 114 OLD HICKORY POINT SNELLVILLE, GA 30278 GREENVILLE, SC 29607 USA USA 803-297-9682 G. L. HILDEBRAND SADCC-ICRISAT GROUNDNUT PROJ PAM HOUSTON P.O. BOX 531 RHONE-POULENC AG COMPANY LILONGWE, 2921 TERRACE WAY MALAWI ~LTUS, OK 73521 265-730 928 USA 405-477-4611

II MARGARET HINDS ROUTE 2, BOX 568 ROBERT K. HOWELL DENMARK, SC 29042 BARC-WEST USA BELTSVILLE, MD 20705 USA 301-504-5531

159 DAVID C. HSI YOSHIHAAU rNATA NMSU PROFESSOR EMERITUS CHIBA PREF AG EXP STA UPL CROPS 1611 RIDGECREST DR., SE 808 DAIZENNO-CHO, MIDORl-KU, ALBUQUERQUE, NM 87108 CHIBA-SHI, CHIBA-KEN, 266, USA JAPAN 505-255-1022 KENNETH E. JACKSON GEORGE HUTCHISON OKLAHOMA STATE UNIVERSITY P.O. BOX592 110 NRC HARARE, STILLWATER, OK 74078 ZIMBABWE USA 405-744-9959 EDWIN G. INGRAM RHONE-POULENC AGRIC. CO. J. 0. JACKSON, JR. 1209 HICKORY LANE #4 REGENCY SQUARE AUBURN, AL 36830 HOBBS, NM 88240 USA USA 205-826-3738 505-392-2965

JOEL INMAN A. J. JAKS P.O. BOX 70758 TEXAS A & M UNIV, TAES ALBANY, GA 31707 P.O. BOX755 USA YOAKUM, TX 77995-0755 912-888-0000 USA 512-293-6326 YASUKI ISHIDA SAITMA UNIVERSITY ROLF JESINGER AGRONOMY LAB, FACULTY OF EDUC 13 CROSSWINDS ESTATES DRIVE URAWA, PITTSBORO, NC 27312 JAPAN USA

THOMAS G. ISLEIB WILLIAM FREDERICK JOHNSON NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIV 9702 WHITLEY PARK DEPT OF CROP SCIENCE BETHSEDA, MD 20814 RALEIGH, NC 27695-7629 USA USA 919-515-3281 W.CARROLLJOHNSON USDA-AAS, COASTAL PLAIN EXP STA RICK IVERSON P.O. BOX 748, DEPT OF AGRONOMY AMERICAN CYANAMID CO. TIFTON, GA 31793 1285 HARROW CRESCENT USA YARDLEY, PA 19067 912-386-3172 USA 215-321-7630 TIMOTHY L. JONES 206 BICKETT BOULEVARD HENRY W. IVEY, II RALEIGH, NC 27608 309 MAIN STREET USA • HEADLAND, AL 36345 919-833-1018 USA 205-693-2363

160 H. E. JOWERS LAKHO L. KHATRI FLA COOP EXT SVC, JACKSON CO HUNT-WESSON, INC. 4487 LAFAYETTE, SUITE 1 1645 W. VALENCIA DRIVE MARIANNA, FL 32446 FULLERTON, CA 92633 USA USA 904-482-9620 714-680-1824

G. L. JUBB, JR. THOMAS KIRKLAND VIRGINIA POLYTECH INST & ST UNIV THOMAS KIRKLAND FARM 104 HUTCHESON HALL ROUTE 1, BOX 209 BLACKSBURG, VA 24061-0402 HEADLAND, AL 36345 USA USA 703-231-6336 205-693-2552 •, YUKIO KAKUDA ORRIE KLEINHEKSEL UNIVERSITY OF GUELPH CPC INTERNATIONAL INC. DEPT OF FOOD SCIENCE 8500 FRAZIER PIKE, BOX 309 GUELPH, ONTARIO N1G 2W1, UTILE ROCK, AR 72203 CANADA USA 519-824-4120 501-490-1441

MONOCHAI KEERATl-KASIKORN DAVID A. KNAUFT KHON KAEN UNNERSITY UNNERSITY OF FLORIDA DEPT OF AGRON, FAC OF AGRIC 304 NEWELL HALL KHON KAEN 40002, GAINESVILLE, FL 32611-0500 THAILAND USA 904-392-1811 NANCY P. KELLER TEXAS A & M UNIVERSITY GARY KOCHERT DEPT PLANT PATH & MICROBIO UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA COLLEGE STATION, TX n843 BOTANY DEPARTMENT USA ATHENS, GA 30602 409-845-0963 USA 404-542-1871 DAROLD L. KETRING USDA-AAS DEANA. KOMM 1301 N. WESTERN 8313 BELLS LAKE ROAD STILLWATER, OK 74075 APEX, NC 27502 USA USA 405-624-4361 KENYA KRESTA ROBERT D. KEYS TEXASAGRIC EXPERIMENT STATION NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNN P.O. BOX292 BOX 7620 STEPHENVILLE, TX 76401 RALEIGH, NC 27695-7620 USA USA 919-515-4071 THOMAS A. KUCHAREK UNNERSITY OF FLORIDA 1421 FIFIELD HALL - PLANT PATH. GAINESVILLE, FL 32611 USA 904-392-1980

161 CRAIG KVIEN H. MICHAEL LINKER COASTAL PLAIN STATION NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIV P.O. BOX748 P.O. BOX 7620 TIFTON, GA 31793 RALEIGH, NC 27695-7620 USA USA 912-386-3360 919-515-5644

MARSHALL C. LAMB ELBERT J. LONG USDA-ARS-NPRL SEVERN PEANUT CO., INC. 1011 FORRESTER DRIVE, SE P.O. BOX710 DAWSON, GA 31742 SEVERN, NC 27877 USA USA 912-995-4441 919-585-0838 • scan LANDGRAF NORMAN LOVEGREN NOBLE FOUNDATION 211 WEST BROOKS STREET P.O. BOX 2180 NEW ORLEANS, LA 70124-1107 ARDMORE, OK 73402 USA USA 504-482-0352 405-221-7257 JAMES N. LUNSFORD JOHN LANSDEN ICI AMERICAS, INC. NATIONAL PEANUT RESEARCH LAB P.O. BOX 8127 1011 FORRESTER DR., SE DOTHAN, AL 36304 DAWSON, GA 31742 USA USA 205-794-4821 912-995-4441 EDMUND LUSAS THOMAS A. LEE, JR. TEXAS A & M UNIVERSITY ROUTE 2, BOX 1 FOOD PRO RES & DEV CTR, FM-183 STEPHENVILLE, TX 76401 COLLEGE STATION, TX 77843 USA USA 817-968-4144 409-845-27 41

STANLEY K. LEHMAN ROBERT E. LYNCH NOR-AM CHEMICAL CO. USDA-AAS, INSECT BIOLOGY LAB P.O. BOX 7495 P.O. BOX748 WILMINGTON, DE 19803 TIFTON, GA 31793-0748 USA USA 302-575-2009 912-382-6904

KATHERINE A. LEIFERMAN-VINAL TIMOTHY P. MACK

609 OVERLAND TRL. DEPT OF ENTOMOLOGY ~ SOUTHLAKE, TX 76092 301 FUNCHESS HALL USA AUBURN UNIVERSITY, AL 36849 817-431-1283 USA 205-844-2558

162 KAZUMI MAEDA DON C. MCGOUGH KOCHI UNIVERSITY GEORGIA FARM BUREAU FED FACULTY OF AGRICULTURE P.O. BOX 7068 NANKOKU KOCHI 783, MACON, GA 31298 JAPAN USA

JIM MAITLAND FREDDIE P. MCINTOSH VCES GOLDEN PEANUT CO. P.O. BOX399 P.O. BOX488 DINWIDDIE, VA 23841 ASHBURN, GA 31714 USA USA

CHARLES R. MASON HENRY MCLEAN P.O. BOX631 SANDOZ CROP PROTECTION !. CLAYTON, AL 36016 170 OLD BLACK SHEAR ROAD USA CORDELE, GA 31015 205-775-3284 USA 912-273-3384 DONALD A. MASTROROCCO, JR. HERSHEY CHOCOLATE USA AITHEL MCMAHON P.O. BOX 1028 #19 TOWN & COUNTRY CIRCLE STUARTS DRAFT, VA 24477 ARDMORE, OK 73401 USA USA 703-337-4700 405-223-3505

MICHAEL MATHERON KAY MCWATIERS UNIVOF ARIZONA/YUMAAG CENTER GEORGIA EXPERIMENT STATION 6425 W. 8TH STREET FOOD SCIENCE DEPT. YUMA, AZ 85364 GRIFFIN, GA 30223-1797 USA USA 602-726-0458 404-228-7284

BRUNO MAZZANI HASSAN A. MELOUK CENTRO NACIONAL DE INV AGROP OKLAHOMA STATE UNIVERSITY CENIAP, AGRONOMIA DEPT OF PLANT PATHOLOGY MARACAY 2101 STILLWATER, OK 74078 VENEZUELA USA 405-744-7988 DUNCAf':J MCDONALD ICRISAT - AFT INT FREIGHT SYS INC KEITH J. MIDDLETON 146-92 GUY A. BREWER BLVD Q'LAND DEPT PRIMARY INDUSTRIES JAMAICA NY 11434 P.O.B. 23, J BJELKE-PETERSON STA USA KINGAROY, QUEENSLAND 4610, AUSTRALIA J. FRANK MCGILL P.O. BOX81 ALAN MILLER TIFTON, GA 31794 AUBURN UNIV/WIREGRASS EXP STA USA P.O. BOX 217, HIGHWAY 134 EAST 912-382-6912 HEADLAND, AL 36345 USA 205-693-2010

163 ROBERT H. MILLER KIM MOORE ASCS-USDA AGRATECH SEEDS, INC. 801 CHALFONTE DRIVE P.O. BOX644 ALEXANDRIA, VA 22305 ASHBURN, GA 31714 USA USA 202-720-8839 912-567-3438

FOY MILLS, JR. DAVID C. MORING ABILENE CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY ROUTE 1, BOX 308 ACU STATION, BOX 7986 HEADLAND, AL 36345 ABILENE, TX 79699 USA USA 205-889-4230 915-674-2401 J. BRADLEY MORRIS JEFFREY S. MINK USDA-AAS PLANT INTRO STATION AMERICAN CYANAMID COMPANY 1109 EXPERIMENT ST 404 S. BEST STREET GRIFFIN, GA 30223 GOLDSBORO, NC 27530 USA USA 404-228-7255

GERALD J. MINORE R. HARVEY MORRIS ISK BIOTECH CORPORATION ROUTE 2, BOX 1006 5966 HEISLEY RD., P.O. BOX 8000 BLADENBORO, NC 28320 MENTOR, OH 44061-8000 USA USA 919-866-5692 216-357-4176 J. C. MORTREUIL NORMAN A. MINTON ISRA COASTAL PLAIN EXPERIMENT STA B.P. 51 TIFTON, GA 31793 CNRA BAMBEY, USA SENEGAL 912-386-3372 ROBERT B. MOSS FORREST L MITCHELL P.O. BOX67 TEXAS AGRIC EXPERIMENT STATION PLAINS, GA 31780 ROUTE 2, BOX 00 USA STEPHENVILLE, TX 76401 912-824-5775 USA 817-968-4144 WALTON MOZINGO TIDEWATER AG EXP STATION S. C. MOHAPATRA P.O. BOX 7099 NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIV SUFFOLK, VA 23437 DEPT BIO & AG ENG, BOX 7625 USA RALEIGH, NC 27695-7625 804-657-6450 USA 919-515-6720 ALAN MURPHY MILES, AGRIC DIVISION 2812 DAVIS ROAD, #14 TIFTON, GA 31794 USA

164 ROGER MUSICK MIKE NEWBERRY CROP GUARD RESEARCH, INC. ROUTE 2, BOX 453 BOX 126 ARLINGTON, GA 31713 EAKLY, OK 73033 USA USA 405-797-3213 S. H. NEWELL P.O. BOX969 KENNETH A. MUZVK STATESBORO, GA 30458 408 LARRIE ELLEN WAY USA BRANDON, FL 33511 912-489-3029 ~ USA 813-681-3461 STEVE NEWTON AMERICAN FARM BUREAU FED TATEO NAKANISHI 225 TOUHY AVENUE ~ NAT'L SHIKOKU AGRIC EXP STATION PARK RIDGE, IL 60068 1-3-1 SENYU-CYOU USA ZENTUJl-SHI, KAGAWA-KEN 765, 312-399-5741 JAPAN SHYAM N. NIGAM TOMMY NAKAYAMA ICRISAT-AFT INT FREIGHT SYS INC. GEORGIA EXPERIMENT STATION 146-92 GUY R. BREWER BLVD. DEPT OF FOOD SCIENCE JAMAICA, NY 11434 GRIFFIN, GA 30223 USA USA 404-228-7284 KENNETH A. NOEGEL MILES, INC. OUSMANE NDOYE BOX 4913-8400 HAWTHORN ROAD ISRA - SECTEUR CENTRE SUD KANSAS CITY, MO 64120-0013 PROGRAMME ARACHIDE-NIORO USA BP 199, KAOLACK, SENEGAL A. J. NORDEN ROUTE 2, BOX 1651 BRUNO J. NDUNGURU HIGH SPRINGS, FL 32643 ICRISAT - AFT INT FREIGHT SYS USA 146-92 GUY A. BREWER BLVD 904-454-3467 JAMAICA, NY 11434 USA BONNY R. NTARE ICRISAT SAHELIAN CENTER KEN W. NELSON B.P. 12404 THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY NIAMEY, 6071 CENTER HILL AVENUE NIGER CINCINNATI, OH 45224-1703 227-72-25-29 USA FORREST W. NUTIER, JR. PAUL A. NESTER IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY AMERICAN CYANAMID CO. 351 BESSEY HALL, DEPT PL PATH 42 W. TRACE CREEK DR. AMES, IA 50011-1020 THE WOODLANDS, TX n381 USA USA 515-294-1741 713-367-7183

165 VIRGINIA OCAMPO WILBUR A. PARKER UNIV OF PHILIPPINES LOS BARNOS SEABROOK BLANCHING CORP DEPT OF ENTOMOLOGY P.O. BOX609 COLLEGE, LAGUNA 4031, EDENTON, NC 27932 PHILIPPINES USA 919-482-4456 WILLIAM C. ODLE ISK BIOTECH CORPORATION JOHN P. PARKS 13281 KERRVILLE FOLKWAY UNIV OF GA, BLECKLEY CO EXT AUSTIN, TX 78729 P.O. BOX47 USA COCHRAN, GA 31014 512-335-5158 USA 912-934-3220 ROBERT L. ORY 7324 LIGUSTRUM DRIVE WAYNE PARROTT NEW ORLEANS, LA 70126 THE UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA USA DEPT OF AGRON - PLANT SCI BLDG 504-246-4430 ATHENS, GA 30602 USA W. WYATT OSBORNE 404-542-0928 IAl, INC. 1319 N. MAIN STREET HAROLD E. PATTEE SOUTH BOSTON, VA 24592 USDA/ ARS-NCSU USA BOX7625 804-575-5059 RALEIGH, NC 27695-7625 USA JACK OSWALD 919-515-3121 FLORIDA FND SEED PRODUCERS P.O. BOX309 GORDON R. PATTERSON GREENWOOD, FL 32443 HERSHEY FOODS CORPORATION USA HERSHEY, PA 17033 904-594-4721 USA

PEGGY OZIAS-AKINS CHRIS PAYNE COASTAL PLAIN EXP STATION RHONE-POULENC DEPT OF HORT., P.O. BOX 748 8018 SW 42ND AVE TIFTON, GA 31793-5401 GAINESVILLE, FL 32608 USA USA 912-386-3961 904-335-4376

SURESH PANDE JAMES R. PEARCE ICRISAT LEGUMES PATH, AFT IFS P.O. BOX 129 146-92 GUY R. BREWER BLVD. TARBORO, NC 27886 JAMAICA, NY 11434-5326 USA USA 919-641-7815

JOHNNY PARKER RICARDO R. PEDELINI 303 SHANDS DRIVE 5809 GRAJ. CABRERA (CBA) COURTLAND, VA 23837 CHILE 845 USA ARGENTINA

166 RICHARD PETCHER BETSY RANDALL-SCHADEL P.O. BOX242 SEED SECTION, NCDA NEW BROCKTON, AL 36351 P.O. BOX 27647 USA RALEIGH, NC 27611-7647 205-894-5596 USA

PATRICK M. PHIPPS P.V. SUBBA RAO VPI & SU - TIDEWATER EXP STATION IRHO/CIRAD, LAB PHYTOPATH P.O. BOX 7099 AV DU VAL DE MONTFER BP 5035 SUFFOLK, VA 23437 34032 MONTPELLIER, USA FRANCE 804-657-6450 BRAXTON B. D. RASCOE CALVIN PIGG GILLAM BROS PEANUT SHELLER INC. SOUTHWEST FARM PRESS BOX 550 13771 N CENTRAL EXPWY #1015 WINDSOR, NC 27983 DALLAS, TX 75243 USA

ROY PITIMAN MICHAEL J. READ USDA/AAS REG PLANT INTRO STA PMB AUSTRALIA AGRIC EXP STA, 1109 EXP STATION P.O. BOX26 GRIFFIN, GA 30223-1797 KINGAROY OLD 4610, USA AUSTRALIA 404-228-7207 D. V. R. REDDY JOSEPH POMINSKI TOBACCO AND HEALTH RES INST SOUTHERN REGIONAL RES CENTER COOPER & UNIVERSITY DRIVES P.O. BOX 19687 LEXINGTON, KY 40546-0236 NEW ORLEANS, LA 70179 USA USA 606-257-4600 504-589-7012 JAMES R. REIZNER SAM POPE, JR. THE PROCTER & GAMBLE CO. 233373 ROYAL OAK LANE 6071 CENTER HILL ROAD DREWRYVILLE, VA 23844 CINCINNATI, OH 45224 USA USA 513-634-2566 D. MORRIS PORTER USDA/AAS HOWARD REYNOLDS TIDEWATER RESEARCH CENTER RHONE-POULENC AG COMPANY SUFFOLK, VA 23437 P.O. BOX902 USA GROVE HILL, AL 36451 804-657-67 44 USA 205-275-8935 NORRIS L POWELL TIDEWATER AGRIC EXPER STATION JIMMY R. RICH P.O. BOX 7099 UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA SUFFOLK, VA 23437 ROUTE 3, BOX 4370 USA QUINCY, FL 32303 804-657-6450 USA 904-627-9236

167 J. J. RIDDICK LE. ROLL TIDEWATER AGRIC EXP STATION RHONE-POULENC AG COMPANY 6321 HOLLAND RD, P.O. BOX 7099 P.O. BOX 12014 SUFFOLK, VA 23437-0099 RES TRIANGLE PARK, NC 2n09 USA USA 804-657-6450 919-549-2234

MICHAEL S. RIFFLE BILLY K. ROWE VALENT USA RHONE-POULENC AG CO. 9559 BUCK HAVEN TRAIL 520 CENTRAL PKWY, SUITE 114 TALLAHASSEE, FL 32312 PLANO, TX 75074 USA USA 904-386-6453 214-618-3064

DENNIS ROBBINS RICHARD RUDOLPH GOLDEN PEANUT COMPANY MILES, INC. P.O. BOX96 1587 PHOENIX BLVD., SUITE 6 HEADLAND, AL 36345 ATLANTA, GA 30349 USA USA 205-693-3332 404-997-7512

R. RODRIGUEZ-KABANA ROBERTA SALOVITCH - LIBRARY AUBURN UNIVERSITY NABISCO FOODS GROUP 1026 E. SAMFORD AVE. P.O. BOX 1944 AUBURN, AL 36830 EAST HANOVER, NJ 07936-1944 USA USA

DANNY D. ROGERS SAMUEL SANCHEZ-DOMINGUEZ VALENT USA CORP DEPT DE FITOTECNIA, UNIV 1333 N CALIFORNIA BLVD SUITE 600 AUTONOMA CHAPINGO/RES WALNUT CREEK, CA 94596 CHAPINGO MEX., USA MEXICO 510-256-2757 TIMOTHY H. SANDERS A. B. ROGERSON USDA/AAS, NORTH CAROLINA ST UN UNIROYAL CHEMICAL DEPT OF FOOD SCIENCE, BOX 7624 158 WIND CHIME COURT RALEIGH, NC 27695-7624 RALEIGH, NC 27615 USA USA 919-515-6312 919-848-9675 PHILIPPE SANKARA E. W. ROGISTER, JR. UNIVERSITE DE OUAGADOUGOU ROUTE 1, BOX 19-A B.P. 7021 WOODLAND, NC 27897 OUAGADOUGOU, BURKINDA FASO, USA WEST AFRICA 919-587-9791 'l' RUSTICO B. SANTOS DEPT OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY REGIONAL OFFICE NO. 2 TUGUEGARAO, CAGAYAN, PHILIPPINES

168 TURNJIT SATAYAVIRUT F. M. SHOKES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE N FLORIDA RES & EDUC CENTER ENTOMOLOGY AND ZOOLOGY DIV ROUTE 3, BOX 4370 BANGKHEN, BANGKOK 10900, QUINCY, FL 32351 THAILAND USA 904-627-9236 T. ALLEN SCARBOROUGH RHONE-POULENC AGRIC CO. JAMES R. SHOLAR P.O. BOX 12014 OKLAHOMA STATE UNIVERSITY RES TRIANGLE PARK, NC 2n09 376 AG HALL USA STILLWATER, OK 74078 919-549-2397 USA 405-744-9616 JAMES D. SCHAUB 7672 KINDLER ROAD W. DONALD SHURLEY LAUREL, MD 20723 UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA USA P.O. BOX 1209 301-ns-9094 TIFTON, GA 31793 USA A. M. SCHUBERT 912-386-3442 TAMU AGRIC RESEARCH STATION P.O. BOX 755 JACK SIMPSON YAOKUM, TX n995-0755 P.O. BOX331 USA GORMAN, TX 76454 512-293-6326 USA 817-734-2397 WILLIAM J. SCIARAPPA, JR. 98 BENNETI AVENUE CHARLES E. SIMPSON NEPTUNE CITY, NJ on53 TEXASAGRIC EXPERIMENT STATION USA P.O. BOX292 908-988-2374 STEPHENVILLE, TX 76401-0292 USA MEHBOOB B. SHEIKH 817-968-4144 FLORIDA A & M UNIVERSITY DMSION OF AGRIC SCIENCES ANIL K. SINHA TALLAHASSEE,FL32307 CARIBBEAN AGRIC RES & DEV INST USA P.O. BOX 2, MINISTRY OF AGRIC 904-561-2218 BELMOPAN, BELIZE, CENTRAL AMERICA JOHN L. SHERWOOD OKLAHOMA STATE UNIVERSITY DONALD H. SMITH DEPT OF PLANT PATHOLOGY C/O S. OLIVER STILLWATER, OK 74078 2814 SANDYFORD AVENUE USA PHILADELPHIA, PA 19152 405-744-9950 USA

BARBARA B. SHEW EDWARD D. SMITH NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIV SMITH BROKERAGE CO., INC. CROP SCI DEPT, BOX 7629 P.O. BOX 910 RALEIGH, NC 27695-7629 SUFFOLK, VA 23434 USA USA 919-515-3930

169 F. DAVIS (TAO) SMITH OUN D. SMITH COWEETA HYDROLOGIC LAB - USDA TEXAS A & M UNIVERSITY 999 COWETA LAB ROAD DEPT OF SOIL & CROP SCIENCES ono, NC 28763 COLLEGE STATION, TX 77843 USA USA 704-524-9822 409-845-8802

H. RAY SMITH DOUGLAS A. SMYTH CIBA-GEIGY CORP. PLANTERS LIFE SAVERS 2807 S. WILDERNESS 200 DE FOREST AVENUE COLLEGE STATION, TX 77840 EAST HANOVER, NJ 07936 USA USA 409-696-8071 SANITA SOMAD HERBERT R. SMITH SOUTHCO COMMODITIES INC. UNITED AGRI PRODUCTS 6175 BARFIELD RD, SUITE 240 P.O. BOX 1198 ATLANTA, GA 30328 FORT VALLEY, GA 31030 USA USA 404-851-1397 912-825-00465 DIELAMOUSSA SOUMANA J. W. SMITH, JR. SRCVO,SOTUBA TEXAS A & M UNIVERSITY BP 438, BAMAKO (MALI), DEPT OF ENTOMOLOGY WEST AFRICA COLLEGE STATION, TX 77843 USA RICHARD K. SPRENKEL 409-845-9717 ROUTE 3, BOX 4370 QUINCY, FL 32351 JOHN S. SMITH, JR. USA NATIONAL PEANUT RESEARCH LAB 904-627-9236 1011 FORRESTER DR, SE DAWSON, GA 31742 CLIFTON L. STACY USA TEXAS PEANUT PRODUCERS BOARD 912-995-4441 P.O. BOX788 PEARSALL, TX 78061 K. JAY SMITH USA 1006 MIMOSA 512-334-3570 IDALOU, TX 79329 USA H. THOMAS STALKER 806-789-1366 NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIV CROP SCIENCE DEPT., BOX 7629 LEWIS W. SMITH, JR. RALEIGH, NC 27695-7629 NORTH CAROLINA COOP EXT SERV USA P.O. BOX 171 919-515-3281 HERTFORD, NC 27944 USA JAMES L. STARR TEXAS A & M UNIVERSITY ~ DEPT. PLANT PATH & MICROBIO COLLEGE STATION, TX 77843 USA 409-845-7311

170 JAMES L. STEELE KAZUO SUZUKI USDA-AAS CHIBA PREF AG STA PNUT PLANTS 1515 COLLEGE AVE HE-199, YACHIMATA-SHI, MANHATIAN, KS 66502 CHIBA-KEN, 289-11, USA JAPAN 913-776-2727 SHIGERU SUZUKI RODNEY STEPHENS CHIBA PREF AG EXP STA PNUT LAB S & H CHEMICAL HE-199, YACHIMATA-SHI ROUTE 3, BOX 194 CHIBA-KEN 289-11, COMANCHE, TX 76442 JAPAN USA 915-356-2104 CHARLES W. SWANN TIDEWATER AG EXP STATION JAMES D. STEPHENSON 6321 HOLLAND RD, P.O. BOX 7099 908 BRANDYWINE LANE SUFFOLK, VA 23437 ROCKY MOUNT, NC 27804 USA USA 804-657-6450

CHRISTOPHER STEVENSON RUTH ANN TABER HERSHEY CHOCOLATE U.S.A. 210 FOREST DR. ONE EAST CHOCOLATE AVENUE LA VALE, MD 21502 HERSHEY, PA17033-0819 USA USA 717-534-7655 JOHN C. TAKISH M&MMARS A. V. STURGEON, JR. 1209 OAKRIDGE DR. 1729 LINDA LANE ALBANY, GA 31708 STILLWATER, OK 74075 USA USA 405-372-0405 FRED TAYLOR AMERICAN CYANAMID PALA SUBRAHMANYAM P.O. BOX400 ICRISAT - AFT INT FREIGHT SYS INC. PRINCETON, NJ 08543 146-92 GUY A. BREWER BLVD USA JAMAICA, NY 11434 609-799-0400 USA S. L. TAYLOR LIONEL SUBRYAN UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA DIVERSIFIED RESEARCH LABS, LTD. DEPT FOOD SCI, FILLEY HALL 1047 YONGE STREET LINCOLN, NE 68583-0919 TORONTO, ONTARIO, M4W 2L2, USA CANADA 402-472-2831 416-922-5100 W. KENT TAYLOR GENE SULLIVAN NOR-AM AGRIC PRODUCTS, INC. NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIV 1602 REGENT ROAD CROP SCIENCE DEPT, BOX 7620 TIFTON, GA 31794 RALEIGH, NC 27695-7620 USA USA 912-382-1018 919-515-2653

171 HAILE TEWOLDE LELAND D. TRIPP TEXAS AGRIC EXP STATION 2811 CAMELOT 1619 GARNER FIELD RD BRYAN, TX nao2 UVALDE, TX 78801 USA USA 409-845-7910 512-278-9151 JOHN M. TROEGER EUGENE THILSTED 2321 PEMBROKE DRIVE ROHM AND HAAS COMPANY ALBANY, GA 31707 ROUTE 1, BOX 238 USA WALLER, TX n484 USA CHERNG-LIANG TSAI 409-372-9131 TAINAN DIST AGRIC IMPR STATION 350, SEC. 1, LIN-SEN ROAD JAMES THOMAS TAINAN, TAIWAN, ROUTE 1, BOX 158-C REP OF CHINA DENMARK, SC 29042 USA SAMUEL N. UZZELL PIIT CITY EXTENSION SERVICES M. HOWARD THOMAS 1717 WEST FIFTH STREET ISK BIOTECH CORP. GREENVILLE, NC 37834 ROUTE 1, BOX 189 USA MULLINS, SC 29574 919-758-1196 USA 803-423-7000 PETER VALENTI PLANTERS & LIFESAVERS STEPHEN D. THOMAS 1100 REYNOLDS BLVD GENERAL DELIVERY WINSTON-SALEM, NC 27102 DULCE, NM 87528 USA USA 505-759-3569 J. F. M. VALLS CENARGEN/EMBRAPA SAMUEL S. THOMPSON S.A.1.N. PAROUE RURAL C.P. 02372 827 WEST 8TH STREET CEP 10.no BRAZILIA OF, TIFTON, GA 31794 BRAZIL USA 912-386-3509 P. J. A. VAN DER MERWE GRAIN CROPS RESEARCH INSTITUTE JAMES W. TODD PRIVATE BAG X1251 COASTAL PLAIN EXP STATION POTCHEFSTROOM 2520, P.O. BOX748 SOUTH AFRICA TIFTON, GA 31793 USA JANA VANDERVEER 912-386-3374 WESTRECO, INC. sn SOUTH FOURTH STREET

NESTOR BAKARY TOUNKARA FULTON, NY 13069 ~ CENTRE DE RECHERCHE USA AGRONOMIQUE DE FOULAYA B.P. 156 KINDIA, GUINEE SWEDEN

172 JOHN R. VERCELLOTII GREG WATSON USDA-AAS-SO REGIONAL RES CTR CIBA-GEIGY CORPORATION P.O. BOX 19687 P.O. BOX 18300 NEW ORLEANS, LA 70179 GREENSBORO, NC 27419 USA USA 504-286-4460 919-632-2993

DAVID J. WAGNER JAMES R. WEEKS UNIV OF GEORGIA COOP EXT SERV AUBURN UNIVERSITY P.O. BOX89 ROUTE 1, BOX 86A PRESTON, GA 31824-0089 ASHFORD, AL 36312 USA USA 912-828-2325 205-693-3419

FARID WALIYAR GLENN WEHT JE ICRISAT - AFT INT FREIGHT SYS INC. AUBURN UNIVERSITY 146-92 GUY R. BREWER BLVD. AGRONOMY DEPARTMENT JAMAICA, NY 11434 AUBURN, AL 36849 USA USA 205-826-4900 I. S. WALLERSTEIN AGRICULTURAL RES ORGANIZATION ARTHUR K. WEISSINGER THE VOLCANI CENTER, P.O. BOX 6 NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIV BET DAGAN 50250, BOX7620 IS RAEL RALEIGH, NC 27695-7620 USA BOBBY WALLS 919-515-2704 AMERICAN CYANAMID COMPANY 1912 CAROLINA CIRCLE DOYLE WELCH GOLDSBORO, NC 27530 P.O. BOX341 USA DE LEON, TX 76444 919-736-2869 USA 817-893-5100 LR. WALTON PET INC. THOMAS B. WHITAKER 400 SOUTH FOURTH STREET NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIV ST. LOUIS, MO 63166 BOX7625 USA RALEIGH, NC 27695-7625 314-622-6134 USA 919-515-3101 KURT WARNKEN WILCO PEANUT COMPANY ROBERT E. WHITESIDE P.O. DRAWER B U.S. GYPSUM PLEASANTON, TX 78064 2641 DANBERRY LANE USA GRAND PRAIRIE, TX 75052 512-569-3808 USA 214-606-4972

173 E. B.WHITIY JONATHAN WILLIAMS UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA ICRISAT - CENTRE SAHELJEN 303 NEWELL HALL B.P. 12404 GAINESVILLE, FL 32611 NIAMEY, USA NIGER VIA PARIS 904-392-1817 LEONARD J. WILLIAMS ANN WIESE RHONE-POULENC AG COMPANY RHONE POULENC AG 106 PIN OAK DRIVE 520 CENTRAL PKWY, SUITE 114 HARRISONBURG, VA 22801 PLANO, TX 75074 USA USA 703-433-3695 214-423-3547 REX B. WILSON JOHN WILCUT GOLDEN PEANUT CO. COASTAL PLAIN EXP STATION P.O. BOX878 DEPT OF AGRONOMY, P.O. BOX 748 CORDELE, GA 31015 TIFTON, GA 31793-0748 USA USA 912-386-3360 SAMUEL N. WILSON GIBBS & SOELL GERALD L WILEY 8601 SIX FORKS ROAD, SUITE 702 1610 RUTLAND ROAD RALEIGH, NC 27615 TIFTON, GA 31794 USA USA 919-870-5718

RICHARD S. WILKES PHILIP L. WINSLOW CPC/BEST FOODS HELENA CHEMICAL CO. 1120 COMMERCE AVE P.O. BOX430 UNION, NJ 07083 COURTLAND, VA 23837 USA USA 908-688-9000 MARVIN E. WINSTON DAVID E. WILLIAMS WINSTON LABORATORIES, INC. USDA, AAS, NGRL 25 MT. VERNON STA, P.O. BOX 361 BLDG 003, RM 400, BARC-WEST RIDGEFIELD PARK, NJ 07660 BELTSVILLE, MD 20705 USA USA 201-440-0022 301-504-6310 LUKE WISNIEWSKI E. JAY WILLIAMS 10855 TERRA VISTA PKWY #109 NATIONAL PEANUT RESEARCH LAB RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730 1011 FORRESTER DRIVE, SE USA DAWSON, GA 31742 714-989-1988 USA MARSHALL B. WIXSON 912-995-4441 ~ AMERICAN CYANAMID CO. J. MICHAEL WILLIAMS 1004 HOLLOW TREET COURT P.O. BOX 1030 COLUMBIA, SC 29212 EDENTON, NC 27932 USA USA

174 KENNETH E. WOODARD GERRY C. ZEKERT TEXAS AGRIC EXPER STATION 416 FOREST HILL CRESCENT ROUTE 2, BOX 00 SUFFOLK, VA 23434 STEPHENVILLE, TX 76401 USA USA 804-539-3620 817-968-4144

F. SCOTT WRIGHT USDA-AAS TIDEWATER RESEARCH CENTER SUFFOLK, VA 23437 USA 804-657-6450

JOHNNY C. WYNNE NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIV NCARS, BOX 7643 RALEIGH, NC 27695-7643 USA 919-515-2717

JOSEPH F. YODER SANDOZ AGRO, INC. 1300 E. TOUHY AVE. DES PLAINES, IL 60018 USA 708-390-3724

ALAN C. YORK NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIV BOX 7620 RALEIGH, NC 27695-7620 USA 919-515-5643

CLYDE T. YOUNG NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIV DEPT FOOD SCI, 236 SCHAUB HALL RALEIGH, NC 27695-7624 USA 919-515-2964

JAMES H. YOUNG NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIV BOX 7625 RALEIGH, NC 27695-7625 USA 919-515-3101

175 INSTITUTIONAL MEMBERS

AGRICULTURE CANADA CENTRAL LIBRARY OF AGRIC SCIENCE LIBRARY /BIBLIOTHEQUE P.O.B. 12 EDIFICE SIR JOHN CARLING BLDG REHOVOT 76100, OITAWA K1A OC5, IS RAEL CANADA CHEMICAL ABSTRACTS SERVICE ANDHRA PRADESH AGRIC UNIV MAX MOORE, LIBRARIAN CENTRAL LIB & DOCUMENT CENTRE P.O. BOX 3012 RAJENDRANAGAR HYDERABAD500030 COLUMBUS, OH 43210 ANDHRA PRADESH, USA INDIA CHITEDZEAGRICRESEARCH STATION ANHEUSER-BUSCH CO .• INC. LIBRARY CORPORATE LIBRARY P.O. BOX 158 P.O. BOX 1828, BECHTOLD STATION LILONGWE, MALAWI, ST. LOUIS, MO 63118-0828 CENTRAL AFRICA USA CIBA-GEIGY CORPORATION AUBURN UNIVERSITY LIBRARY RALPH BROWN DRAUGHON LIBRARY P.O. BOX 18300 SERIALS DEPARTMENT GREENSBORO, NC 27419 AUBURN UNIVERSITY, AL 36849 USA USA 919-632-2860

BOT-UNESP CLEMSON UNIVERSITY C/O LIBRIS EBSCO SERIAL ACQUISITIONS/1AAM5431 CAIXA POSTAL 65000 ROBERT M. COOPER LIBRARY 20072 - RIO JANEIRO - RJ, CLEMSON, SC 29634-3001 BRAZIL USA

BRITISH LIBRARY COASTAL PLAIN EXPER STATION DOCUMENT SUPPLY CENTRE LIBRARY SERIAL ACCESSIONS (AO) P.O. BOX748 BOSTON SPA - YORKS LS23 7BQ, TIFTON, GA 31793 ENGLAND USA

THE BRITISH LIBRARY DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE ACQUISITIONS UNIT (SRIS) LIBRARIAN BOSTON SPA BARON-HAY COURT WETHERBY LS23 780, SOUTH PERTH 6151, ENGLAND AUSTRALIA

CENTRAL FOOD TECH RESEARCH INST DEPARTMENT OF AGRIC RESEARCH LIBRARY AND DOCUMENTATION LIBRARIAN CHELUVAMBA MANSION PRIVATE BAG 0033 MYSORE 570 013, GABORONE, INDIA BOTSWANA

176 DEPT OF AGRIC & WATER SUPPLIES HARVARD UNNERSITY LIBRARY: HIGHVELD REGION OAKES AMES LIBRARIES PRIVATE BAG X804 22 DNINITY AVENUE POTCHEFSTROOM 2520, CAMBRIDGE, MA 02138 SOUTH AFRICA USA

DEPT OF PRIMARY INDUSTRIES HUALIEN DIST AGRIC IMPR STATION SERIALS LIBRARIAN LIBRARY CENTRAL LIBRARY GPO BOX 46 144 CHI-AN VILLAGE BRISBANE, QLD 4001, HUALIEN, TAIWAN (FORMOSA)97309, AUSTRALIA REP OF CHINA

H. DE GROOT DOUWE EGBERT$ ICRISAT DOCUMENTATION CENTRER & D LIBRARIAN POSTBUS 2 PATANCHERU POST 3500 CA UTRECHT, ANDHRA PRADESH 502 324, HOLLAND INDIA

DSIR LINCOLN IOWA STATE UNNERSITY CROP RESEARCH DNISION PARKS LIBRARY PRNATE BAG ACQUISITIONS DEPARTMENT CHRISTCHURCH, AMES, IA 50011-2140 NEW ZEALAND USA

E. I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS & CO. KAGOSHIMA DAIGAKU STINE 135 LIBRARY CHUO-TOSHOKAN P.O. BOX30 KOORIMOTO 1-CHOME NEWARK, DE 19714-0030 KAGOSHIMA 890, USA JAPAN

EASTERN NEW MEXICO UNIVERSITY KASETSART UNNERSITY LIBRARY - SERIALS DEPT MAIN LIBRARY PORTALES, NM 88130 KAMPHANGSEAN CAMPUS/DISTRICT USA NAKORN, PATHOM PROV 73140, THAILAND FAO LIBRARY SERIALS KONINKLIJK INST VOOR DE TROPEN 00100 ROME, BIBLIOTHEEK - SSS ITALY MAURITSKADE 63 1092 AD AMSTERDAM, GRAIN CROPS INSTITUTE HOLLAND PRNATE BAG/PRIVAATSAK X1251 POTCHEFSTROOM 2520 LIB LANDCARE RES 09147 SOUTH AFRICA P.O. BOX 69/LINCOLN CANTERBURY GUJARAT AGRICULTURAL UNNERSITY NEW ZEALAND THE LIBRARIAN SARDAR KRUSHINAGAR 385 506, THOMAS J. LIPTON, INC. INDIA LIBRARY 800 SYLVAN AVENUE ENGLEWOOD CLIFFS, NJ 07632 USA

1n MALANG RES INST FOR FOOD CROPS NTUG/SCI TECH THE LIBRARY INFORMATION CENTER J1WILIS10 P.O. BOX 4 NANKANG MALANG, TAIPEI 11529 TAIWAN, INDONESIA REP OF CHINA

ALBERT R. MANN LIBRARY OKLAHOMA STATE UNIVERSITY SERIALS UNIT EDMON LOW LIBRARY ACQUISITIONS DIVISION ACQUISITIONS - PERIODICALS ITHACA, NY 14853 STILLWATER, OK 74078 USA USA

MAURITIUS SUGAR IND RES INST THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY LIBRARY WINTON HILL TECHNICAL LIBRARY !' REDUIT, 6090 CENTER HILL ROAD MAURITIUS CINCINNATI, OH 45224 USA MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES - SERIALS PUNJAB AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY EAST LANSING, Ml 48824-1048 MOHINDER SINGH RANDHAWA USA LIBRARY LUDHIANA 141004, PUNJAB, MISSISSIPPI STATE UNIVERSITY LIB INDIA ACQUISITIONS/SERIALS P.O. BOX 5408 PUNJABRAO KRISHI VIDY APEETH LIB MISSISSIPPI STATE, MS 39762-5408 UNIVERSITY LIBRARIAN USA AKOLA 444 104 MAHARASHTRA, N.R.I. LIBRARY INDIA CENTRAL AVE, CHATHAM MARITIME CHATHAM, KENT ME4 4TB, RUPPIN INSTITUTE UNITED KINGDOM THE LIBRARY, HEAD LIBRARIAN EMEK HEFER NCHU- DEPT. OF AGRONOMY CODE 60960, C/0 SUPER. CHANNEL ENTERPRISES IS RAEL P.O. BOX 96-286 TAIPEI, TAIWAN (FORMOSA), SERDANG/PERTANIAN REP OF CHINA LIBRARY SERIALS DIVISION P.O. BOX 1565 NOBLE FOUNDATION BIRMINGHAM, AL 35201-1565 BIOMEDICAL/LIBRARY USA P.O. BOX 2180 ARDMORE, OK 73402 SOUTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY USA MORRIS LIBRARY - CONTINUATIONS CARBONDALE, IL 62901 NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY USA D. H. HILL LIBRARY :! ACQUISITIONS DEPT., BOX 7111 TAINAN DIST AGRIC IMPR STATION RALEIGH, NC 27695 350 UN-SEN ROAD, SECTION 1 USA TAINAN, TAIWAN (FORMOSA) 70125, REP OF CHINA

178 TAIWAN AGRIC RES INST LIBRARY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 189 CHUNG CHENG ROAD JAY AGRICULTURE RESEARCH CENTER WAN FENG WU FENG/TAICHUNG ROUTE 3, BOX 575 TAIWAN, JAY, FL 32565 REP OF CHINA USA 904-994-5215 TAMIL NADU AGRIC UNIVERSITY LIBRARY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA COIMBATORE 641003 MARSTON SCIENCE LIBRARY INDIA GAINESVILLE, FL 32611 USA TARLETON STATE UNIVERSITY 210800 LIBRARY UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA LIBRARIES TARLETON STATION COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE STEPHENVILLE, TX 76402 GEORGIA EXPERIMENT STATION USA GRIFFIN, GA 30223-1797 USA TEXAS A & M UNIVERSITY LIBRARY UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA LIBRARIES SERIALS RECORD SCIENCE PERIODICALS DEPT. COLLEGE STATION, TXn843 ATHENS, GA 30602 USA USA

UNIV HANNOVER TECHNISCHE INFOR UNIVERSITY OF GUELPH UNIVERSITATSBIBLIOTHEK TECH LIBRARY - SERIALS DIVISION D-3 HANNOVER 1 GUELPH, ONTARIO N1G 2W1, WELFENGARTEN 1B, CANADA GERMANY UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS LIBRARY UNIV OF CALIFORNIA AT DAVIS SERIALS-FAX THE LIBRARY 1408 WEST GREGORY DRIVE ACQUISITIONS DEPARTMENT URBANA, IL 61801 DAVIS, CA 95616-5292 USA USA UNIVERSITY OF ORANGE FREE STATE UNIVERSITAT BONN ZENTRALBIBL UOVS - SASOL - LIBRARY LANDBAUWISSENSCH, PB 2460 P.O. BOX301 ZEITSCHRIFTEN ZUGANGSTELLE 9300 BLOEMFONTEIN, 5300 BONN, SOUTH AFRICA GERMANY UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND UNIVERSITY OF AGRIC SCIENCES CENTRAL LIBRARY, SERIALS SECTION UNIVERSITY LIBRARIAN ST.. LUCIA CAMPUS KRISHINAGAR ST. LUCIA, OLD 4072, DHARWAD 580005 AUSTRALIA INDIA UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE AGRICULTURE-VET MED LIBRARY VET TEACHING HOSPITAL KNOXVILLE, TN 37996 USA

179 USDA NATIONAL AGRIC LIBRARY CURRENT SERIAL RECORDS - CSR ROOM 002, 10301 BALTIMORE BLVD. BELTSVILLE, MD 20705 USA

USDA NATIONAL AGRIC LIBRARY CURRENT SERIAL RECORDS - PAR 10301 BALTIMORE BLVD, ROOM 002 BELTSVILLE, MD 20705 USA

USDA SOUTHERN REG RES CENTER LIBRARY P.O. BOX 19687 NEW ORLEANS, LA 70179 USA

UTFN/LIB/006, C/O UNDP NATIONAL PROJECT MANAGER P.O. BOX358 TRIPOLI, LIBYA

VIENNA INTNAT'L CENTRE LIBRARY WAGRAMERSTRASSE 5 P.O. BOX 100 A-1400 VIENNA, AUSTRIA

VIRGINIA POLY INST & ST UNIV UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES SERIALS RECEMNG BLACKSBURG, VA 24061-0434 USA

180 ORGANIZATIONAL MEMBERS

ALFORD REFRIG WAREHOUSES, INC. CIRAD/CA CERAAS CNAA B.W. ALFORD, II D.ANNEROSE P.O. BOX 655088 B.P. 59 DALLAS, TX 75265 BAMBEY, USA SENEGAL 214-426-0222 221-73-61-97

BIRDSONG PEANUTS FARMERS FERTILIZER & MILLING P.O. BOX469 KEVIN CALHOUN DAWSON, GA 31742 P.O. BOX265 USA COLQUITI, GA 31737 USA BIRDSONG PEANUTS 912-758-3520 T. H. BIRDSONG, 111 P.O. BOX698 WOODROE FUGATE & SONS GORMAN, TX 76454 DUANE FUGATE USA P.O. BOX 114 817-734-2266 WILLISTON, FL 32696 USA BIRDSONG PEANUTS 904-528-5871 TOM WEST P.O. BOX 1400 GEM CHEM SUFFOLK, VA 23434 DENNIS WILEY USA TIFTON, GA 31793 804-539-3456 USA

BORDEN PEANUT COMPANY, INC. GFA PEANUT ASSOCIATION P.O. BOX28 CHARLES F. COKER PORTALES, NM 88130 U.S. 19 SOUTH USA CAMILLA, GA 31730 505-356-8545 USA 912-336-5241 CAMAS INTERNATIONAL, ISU, BTC ARTHUR ZALTZMAN GOLDEN PEANUT COMPANY 1651 ALVIN RICKEN DRIVE JIMMY DORSETI POCATELLO, ID 83201 1100 JOHNSON FERRY RD, SUITE 580 USA ATLANTA, GA 30342 208-234-2045 USA 404-843-7821 CCA SNACK FOODS JEFF PETERSON 'GUSTAFSON 23 SOUTH STREET DANIEL G. POWELL RYDALMERE NSW 2116, P.O. BOX69 AUSTRALIA ATHENS, GA 30601 USA

181 ISK BIOTECH CORPORATION OLIESADERAAD GEORGE N. CHISM OILSEEDS BOARD 1507 JOHNSON FERRY RD, SUITE 190 POSBUS/P.O. BOX 211 MARIETTA, GA 30062 PRETORIA 0001 USA REPUBLIC OF SOUJ'H AFRICA

KP FOODS GROUP THE PEANUT FARMER MAGAZINE J. N. DUSZANSKYJ MARY EVANS EASTWOOD TRADING ESTATE P.O. BOX 95075 ROTHERHAM, S YORKSHIRE 265 1TD, RALEIGH, NC 27625 ENGLAND USA 919-872-5040

THE LEAVITI CORPORATION :} JAMES T. HINTLIAN THE PEANUT GROWER P.O. BOX31, 100 SANTIW HWY CATHERINE ANDREWS EVERETT, MA 02149 P.O. BOX83 USA TIFTON, GA 31793 USA MILES RESEARCH FARM 912-386-8591 DAVID ROGERS ROUTE 4, BOX 2870 PEANUT PROCESSORS, INC. TIFTON, GA 31794 BOX 160 USA DUBLIN, NC 28332 912-382-7994 USA

NEOGEN CORPORATION PEERLESS MANUFACTURING CO. DONALD UGLOW, VP SLS & MKTG W. E. DYKES 620 LESHER PLACE P.O. BOX245 LANSING, Ml 48912 SHELLMAN, GA 31786 USA USA 517-372-9200 912-679-5353

NISSIN INTL TRANSPORT USA,. INC. PERT LABS, INC. 572967 RICKY BOYCE 12 THORNTON ROAD P.O. BOX267 OAKLAND, NJ 07436-3116 EDENTON, NC 27932 USA USA 919-482-4456 NORTH CAROLINA CROP IMPR ASSOC CARROLL E. COWNS PLANTERS LIFESAVERS CO. 3709 HILLSBOROUGH STREET ORIS E. HOLLOWAY RALEIGH, NC 27607 P.O. BOX64 USA WINSTON-SALEM, NC 27102-0064 919-515-2851 USA 919-741-2945

OKLAHOMA CROP IMPROVE ASSOC ~ F. E. LEGRAND POND BROTHERS PEANUT CO., INC. OKLAHOMA STATE UNN 368 AG HALL RICHARD L POND, JR. STILLWATER, OK 74078 P.O. BOX 1370 USA SUFFOLK, VA 23439-1370 405-624-7117 USA 804-539-2356

182 PROCTER & GAMBLE VIRGINIA-CAROLINA PEANUT FARMERS MARTY MISHKIN B. E. MARKS, JR. 6110 CENTER HILL ROAD P.O. BOX239 CINCINNATI, OH 45224 FRANKLIN, VA 23851 USA USA 513-634-1300 804-569-9255

SHULTZ PEANUT & COLD STORAGE YEPHET BEN YEPHET VOLCANI CTR 160 FLEETWOOD AVENUE BET-DAGAN 50250 P.O. BOX40 IS RAEL WAKEFIELD, VA 23888 USA ZVIBAR 804-899-8900 HEVEL MA'ON D. N. NEGEV, SOUTHEASTERN PEANUT ASSOC. ISRAEL 85465 JOHN T. POWELL 057-982107 /8 P.O. BOX 70157 ALBANY, GA 31707 USA 912-888-2508

SOUTHWEST FARM PRESS CALVIN PIGG 13n1 N. CENlRALEXPWY, SUITE 1015 DALLAS, TX 75243 USA

SOUTHWESTERN PEANUT GROWERS ROSS WILSON P.O. BOX338 GORMAN, TX 76454 USA 817-734-2222

SOUTHWESTERN PEANUT SHELLERS SYDNEY C. REAGAN 10 DUNCANNON CT., GLENN LAKE DALLAS, TX 75225 USA 214-368-2014

STEVENS INDUSTRIES JIM ROEHR P.O. BOX272 DAWSON, GA 31742 USA 912-995-2111

VICAM, LIMITED PARTNERSHIP 211 CORPORATION WAY MEDFORD, MA 02155 USA

183 STUDENT MEMBERS

JAMES C. BARBOUR THOMAS BUTZLER P.O. BOX 2339 NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY ATHENS, GA 30612-0339 RALEIGH, NC 27695 USA USA 404-542-0905 GLENN F. CHAPPELL, II WILLIAM D. BATCHELOR 17420 OLD STAGE ROAD UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA CARSON, VA 23830 FRAZIER ROGERS HALL USA GAINESVILLE, FL 32611 USA MING CHENG NEW MEXICO STATE UNIVERSITY JERRY A. BAYSINGER DEPT OF AGRON & HORTICULTURE OKLAHOMA STATE UNIVERSITY LAS CRUCES, NM 88003 272 AG HALL, DEPT OF AGRONOMY USA STILLWATER, OK 74078-0507 USA TOM CLEMENTE 405-744-9628 NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY DEPT PLANT PATHOLOGY, BOX 7616 MICHAEL J. BELL RALEIGH, NC 27695-7616 UNIVERSITY OF GUELPH USA CROP SCIENCE DEPARTMENT GUELPH, ONTARIO N1G 2W1, JULIUS E. FAJARDO CANADA TEXAS A & M UNIVERSITY 519-8244120 DEPT OF PLANT PATHOLOGY COLLEGE STATION, TX n843-2132 CECILIA BIANCHI-HALL USA NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY 409-845-83n DEPT CROP SCIENCE, BOX 7620 RALEIGH, NC 27695-7620 LISA M. FERGUSON USA 3136 STANHOPE AVENUE 919-515-3267 RALEIGH, NC 27607 USA PHILLIP M. BRANNEN 919-832-0641 AUBURN UNIVERSITY DEPT OF PLANT PATHOLOGY LUIS GIRAUDO AUBURN, AL 36849 2335 STEWART AVE., APT 207 USA ST. PAUL, MN 55116 205-844-1973 USA

PHILIP BRUNE TIMOTHY L. GREY NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY AUBURN UNIVERSITY DEPT PLANT PATHOLOGY, BOX 7616 AUBURN, AL 36849 RALEIGH, NC 27695 USA USA 919-515-3930

184 ANAN HIRUNSALEE JOHN S. RICHBURG, Ill NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA DEPT PLANT PATHOLOGY, BOX 7616 TIFTON, GA 31793 RALEIGH, NC 27695-7616 USA USA 919-515-6827 KEITH RUCKER UGA/CPES AGRONOMY THOMAS A. HOELEWYN P.O. BOX748 TEXAS A & M UNIVERSITY TIFTON, GA 31793 1600 WELSH, #233 USA COLLEGE STATION, TX n840 912-386-7057 USA 409-693-51 n ISMAIL SURUR UNIVERSITY OF LUND, BOX 124 JAMES JACOBI CHEMICAL CENTER- FOOD ENG DEPT AUBURN UNIVERSITY S-221 00 LUND, DEPT OF PLANT PATHOLOGY SWEDEN AUBURN, AL 36849 USA SETYO DWI UTOMO 205-844-1973 NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY BOX 7629, PEANUT BREEDING TERRY LITILEFIELD PROJECT UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA RALEIGH, NC 27695-7629 303 NEWELL HALL USA GAINESVILLE, FL 32611 919-515-3281 USA . 904-392-1818 LIJUN WU OKLAHOMA STATE UNIVERSITY NSALAMBI VA KANDA NKONGOLO DEPT OF PLANT PATHOLOGY, 110 NRC P.O. BOX 165 ASU STILLWATER, OK 74078-9947 LORMAN, MS 39096 USA USA 405-7 44-5643 so1-sn-3769

MAHAMA OUEDRAOGO TEXAS A & M UNIVERSITY BOX470 COLLEGE STATION, TX n841 USA

TALLURY P. S. RAU NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY CROP SCIENCE DEPT, BOX 7629 RALEIGH, NC 27695 USA 919-515-3281

ANIS UR REHMAN NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY CROP SCIENCE DEPT, BOX 7620 RALEIGH, NC 27695-7620 USA

185 SUSTAINING MEMBERS

AGROLINZ, INC. HERSHEY CHOCOLATE U.S.A. LUIS F. FIGUEROLA RONALD T. MURPHY 6525 QUAIL HOLLOW, SUITE 107 19 EAST CHOCOLATE AVE. MEMPHIS, TN 38120-1309 HERSHEY, PA 17033 USA USA

!"' ALABAMA PEANUT PROD ASSOC ISK BIOTECH CORPORATION JAMES E. MOBLEY GARY L. EILRICH P.O. BOX 1282 P.O. BOX 8000, 5966 HEISLEY ROAD DOTHAN, AL 36302 MENTOR, OH 44061-8000 ~· USA USA 205-792-6482 LIPHA TECH NITRAGIN BRAND INOC ANDERSON'S PEANUTS STEWART SMITH JOHN W. FRYER 3101 W. CUSTER AVENUE P.O. DRAWER 420 MILWAUKEE, WI 53209 OPP, AL 36467 USA USA 414-462-7600

BEST FOODS/CPC INTERNATIONAL NATIONAL PEANUT COUNCIL MARY L POLITZ KIM CUTCHINS P.O. BOX 1534, 1120 COMMERCE AVE 1500 KING STREET, SUITE 301 UNION, NJ 07083 ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314 USA USA 908-688-9000 703-838-9500

FLORIDA PEANUT PRODUCERS ASSOC NO CAROLINA PNUT GROWERS ASSOC P.O. BOX447 NORFLEET L. SUGG GRACEVILLE, FL 32440 P.O. BOX 1709 USA ROCKY MOUNT, NC 27802 904-263-6130 USA 919-446-8060 GA AG COMMODITY COMM PEANUTS EMORY M. MURPHY OKLAHOMA PEANUT COMMISSION P.O. BOX967 WILLIAM FLANAGAN TIFTON, GA 31793 BOXD USA MADILL, OK 73446 912-386-3470 USA 405-795-3622 GRIFFIN CORPORATION JIM R. BONE PEANUT GROWERS COOP MKT ASSOC P.O. BOX 1847 DELL COTTON VALDOSTA, GA 31603-1847 P.O. BOX59 -- USA FRANKLIN, VA 23851 912-249-5306 USA 804-562-4103

186 PROCTOR & SCHWARTZ, INC. CHARLES S. KOVACS, JR. 251 GIBRALTER ROAD HORSHAM, PA 19044 USA 215-443-5200

RHONE-POULENC AG COMPANY R. L. CARGILL P.O. BOX 12014 RES TRIANGLE PARK, NC 27709 USA

TEXAS PEANUT PRODUCERS BOARD MARY WEBB P.O. BOX398 GORMAN, TX 76454 USA 817-734-2853

VIRGINIA PEANUT GROWERS ASSOC RUSSELL C. SCHOOLS P.O. BOX 149 CAPRON, VA 23829 USA 804-658-4573

187 AUTHOR INDEX

Adams. J.F...... 31 Clemente. T.E...... 16. 19 Adams. J.L ...... 54 Cohen, B.A...... 21 Anderson. J.C...... 27 Cole, R.J...... 27 Anderson. W.F...... 19,23,24 Colvin, D.L...... 17,49,50 Backman, P.A ...... 18,56 Culbreath, A.K. . 39,45,55,57 ,60 ..,. Bailey, J.E...... 42.43 Cundiff, J.S...... 28 Baird, R.E...... 45 Damicone, J.P ...... 41,42 Baker, K.D...... 28 Davidson, J.I...... 29,37 Baldwin, J.A...... 32 Demski, J.W...... 19,39,60 Barbour, J.C...... 51 Domer, J.W...... •..... 27 Barbour, J.D...... 35 Dunbar, K.B...... 19,63 Barnett, C.C ...... 54 Fletcher, S.M ...... 52 Basha, S.M ...... 62 French, J ...... 58 Beasley, Jr., J.P...... 32 Friesen, B.E ...... 25 Bell, D.K...... 45 Gaines, T.P...... 33 Bell, J.W...... 43 Gascho, G.J...... 31,33 Bell, M.J ...... 16 Gooden, D.T...... 47 Bett, K.L...... 26 Gorbet, D.W...... 21 .22,25 Beute, M.K...... 16.17,24 Grey. T.L ...... 47 Birdwhistell, A.J...... 59 Grichar, W.J ...... 48.50 Blankenship, P.O...... 27,29 Guerke, W.R...... 33 Bordelon, Y.M ...... 61 Hagan, A.K...... 36,45 Bowen. K.L ...... 45 Hartzog, D.L...... 31 Boyd-Robertson, P.S ...... 48 Herbert, Jr., D.A. . . . . 30,35,59 Branch, W.D...... 22 Highland, H.B...... 59 Brandenburg, R.L...... 35 Hodges, S.C...... 31 Brannen, P.M ...... 18 Holbrook, C.C...... 23.24 Brar, G.S: ...... 21 Hsi, D.C.H ...... 20 Brecke, B.J ...... 17,34 lgbokwe, P.E ...... 18 Brenneman, T.B ... 22,44,55,57 Jackson. K.E...... 41,42 Bridges. D.C ...... 51 Jarret. R.L ...... 19 Brown, A.B...... 53 Johnson, Ill. W.C...... 49,50 Brown, S.L ...... 36 Jones, S...... 46 Brune, P.O ...... 42 Kahn, S...... 21 Butts, C.L...... 28,29,37 Katsar, C.S...... 23 ... Carley, D.H...... 52 Ketring, D.L...... 33 Cassidy, B.G...... 39 Knauft, D.A...... 21 .22,25 Chamberlin, J.R...... 60 Koller, W...... 57 Chappell. G.F ...... 17 Kresta, K.K...... 59 Cheng. M...... 20 Lamb. M.C ...... 29.37.53 Chiou, R.Y.-Y ...... 26 Lee, Jr., T.A...... 44,55 Chiyembekeza, A.J ...... 25 Li, Z.J ...... 19 Chung, S.Y ...... 61 Littlefield, T.A...... 17

188 Lowry, V.K...... 59 Smith, Jr., J.W...... 59 Martens, D.C ...... 63 Stalker, H.T ...... - ...... 24 Matherson, M.E...... 23 Starr, J.L...... 23 McDonald, D...... 40 Stone, N.D ...... 59 Melouk, H.A...... 41,42 Subba Rao, P.V...... 40 Michaels, T.E ...... 16 Subrahmanyam, P...... 40 Miller, R.H...... 38 Swann, C.W...... 30,31,35 Mills, Jr., F.D ...... 37,53 Taber, R.A...... 40 Mitchell, F.L...... 59 Todd, J.W...... 39,60 Mozingo, R.W ...... 32 Traeger, J.M...... 29 Mullinix, Jr., B.G ...... 45 Vick, C.L...... 21 Nakayama, T.O.M...... 62 Waliyar, ,F...... 40 Nelson, R.S...... 39 Wallerstein, l.S...... 21 Nkongolo, N.V...... 18 Walls, Jr., F.R...... 47 Noegel, K.A...... 43,58 Watson, G.R...... 58 Ozias-Akins, P...... 19 Weber, Z...... 22 Parker, M.B ...... 33 Weeks, J.R...... 36,45,60 Pennington, R.E...... 39 Wehtje, G.R...... 47,49,60 Phillips, G.C...... 20 Weissinger, A.K. . . . . 16, 19,20 Phipps, P.M ...... 30,56 Wells, L...... 41,60 Pittman, R.N...... 19,63 Wilcut, J.W..... ·46,47,48,49,50 Porter, D.M ...... 40 Wiley, G...... 46,47 Powell, N.L...... 30,63 Will, M.E...... 23 Renard, J.L...... 40 Williams, E.J ...... 29 Richburg, Ill, J.S...... 46,48 Wilson, D.M ...... 23 Robertson, D.G...... 41 Wixson, M.B...... 47 Rodriguez-Kabana, R...... 41 Wright, F.S...... 28,32 Roy, R.C ...... 16 Yan, X...... 27 Rudolph, R.D...... 43 York, A.C ...... 50 Sanchez-Dominguez, S. . . . . 61 Zhang, P...... 52 Sanders, T.H ...... 26 Schaub, J.D ...... 53 Schnall, J.A...... 16,19,20 Schubert, A.M...... 26 Sherwood, J.L...... 39 Shew, B.B...... 24 Shakes, F.M...... 21,22,57 Sholar, J.R...... 42 Shurley, W.D...... 38,53 Simpson, C.E ...... 23 Singh, B...... 27 Singletary, M...... 29 Singsit, C...... 19 Smith, D.H ...... 40 Smith, J.S...... 29

189 •,

.l,

.~;.